BAY CAPITAL INDIA FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 55, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

capital gains\namounting to Rs.38,48,55,851/- earned on sale of listed equity shares in India\non the basis that the same are not taxable under section 195

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

195 - 207 7. Ronit Textiles Private Limited Ronit 217 - 233 8. Shandhiya Marketing & Advertising Private 242-281 Shandhiya Marketing & Advertising Private Shandhiya Marketing & Advertising Private Limited 242 - 254 Limited 242 Speciality Paper Limited 9. Speciality Paper Limited 258 - 281 10. Terry Towel Industries Limited Terry Towel Industries Limited 282-311 1.2 Further it is submitted that the documents submitted

VINAY PARMANAND HARIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT), WARD-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Kempinski Private Residences Room No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Unit 40F Dki Jakarta, 10310 India Building, Nariman Point, Indonesia. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabph 4179 A Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and notices u/s 148 of the Act short ‘the Act’) and notices u/s 148 of the Act short ‘the Act’) and notices u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Subsequently ubsequently, the assessee filed return of income on the assessee filed return of income on 29.03.2022 and further

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

gain. viii. Excess allowances of deduction of ₹250,03,69,520/- under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act, where the assessee is eligible for deduction to the extent of only ₹542,07,79,550/- but in the assessment order same was allowed to the extent of ₹792,11,49,070/-. 06. This show cause notice was replied

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KAUSHAL YASHWANT AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gains, nor as casual or non-recurring receipt.\nAccordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment.\n\n16.2 The Commissioner exercising his powers under section 263\npassed a revisionary order holding that while making the assessment,\nthe Assessing Officer failed to consider the decision of the Bombay High\nCourt in case of CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers [1990] 186\nITR

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KEKIN KUNVERJI CHHEDA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gains. That has been\nheld to be a compensation in money for breach of the contract. That,\nas appearing in this case, is something which will be the substitution\nfor the original relief. It is in lieu of specific performance. There is no\nright then to claim the property but to be compensated for breach of an\nagreement

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. CMS COMPUTERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

195/- Cost of Acquisition Rs.57,59,85,255/- Capital Gains Rs.55,82,15,940/ Short term Capital loss Rs. 42,83,05,918/- adjusted Tax Paid Rs.2,59,82,004/- 6. Detail of the Investment made in J M Balanced Fund is tabulated as under:- Date of Transactions No. of Units Values Transactions Purchase 24.12.2014 57540931 1500000000 Dividend

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. 2015 GROVER FAMILY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

195/- Cost of Acquisition Rs.57,59,85,255/- Capital Gains Rs.55,82,15,940/ Short term Capital loss Rs. 42,83,05,918/- adjusted Tax Paid Rs.2,59,82,004/- 6. Detail of the Investment made in J M Balanced Fund is tabulated as under:- Date of Transactions No. of Units Values Transactions Purchase 24.12.2014 57540931 1500000000 Dividend

TAJ TV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Taj Tv Limited Dcit (International C/O. Suresh Surana & Taxation)-4(1)(2) Associates Llp Air India Building, 8Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 021 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct6542J Reference Of Orders / Directions In Appeal Sr Orders & Directions Passed By Date No 1 Draft Assessment Order U/S The Deputy 27/12/2019 144C Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai 2 Direction U/S 144C (5) Of The Cit (Drp-2) , 22/03/2021 Act Mumbai - 2 3 Assessment Order U/S 143 93) The Deputy 12/04/2021 R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

capital gain attributable to the permanent establishment in India of US$ 267,271,940 is chargeable to tax in India u/s 50 B of the act read with article 13 (2) of the DTAA. iii. With respect to objection number 3 and 4 it was held that as the revenue has been consistently holding that assessee has a permanent establishment

MRS SHIREEN J. DASTUR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAXATION WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shireen J. Dastur Income Tax Officer, 330, Coral Avenue, (International Taxation), New Port Beach, Ward 2(1)(1), California Vs. Mumbai 92662 Usa (Pan : Ctlpd0257N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 O R D E R

195 ITR 28 (Bom). In this judgement, Hon'ble Court noted that it is a trite law that income can be held to accrue only when the assessee acquires the right to receive the income. For the purpose of invoking chargeability for capital gains arising from capital asset, the right to capital asset must fall within the expression “property

COMSTAR MAURITIUS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (IT) MUMBAI-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Comstar Mauritius Limited Cit (It), Agarwal Vijay & Associates, 503, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Jolly Bhavan, No.1, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcc1225Q

capital gain was worked out of ₹724,17,60,629/-. Based on the above transaction assessee filed its return of income on 11th October, 2018 at Rs nil claiming refund of tax deduction at source of ₹71,37,90,865/-. This has arisen because of the tax deduction made by the buyer under Section 195