ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

195 - Other sums: (1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being interest referred to in section 194LB or section 194LC) or section 194LD or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable under the head "Salaries") shall

BUNKIM FINANCE & INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 14A, directed Ld. AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of exempt income and deleted the balance disallowance of Rs.6.39 Lacs. The same has given rise to one of the grounds of cross-appeals. 3.3 Upon due consideration, we find that as per settled legal position, the provisions of Rule 8D were not applicable to the year under consideration

UNIVERSAL MEDICARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

section 50B and at the same time can stay claim that it is not a going concern transaction but subject to adjustment. The ld. DR vehemently submits that the transfer of business on which the Capital Gains arise is not dependent on the supply agreement. In support of her submission, the ld. DR for the revenue relied upon the following

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA SURESH JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Murugappa Chettair (S) (1992) 197 ITR 575 (Ker); Godavarl Devi Sehgal v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 108 (A T) (Del). (iv) Where the authority giving the earlier decision had taken into consideration all material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Murugappa Chettair (S) (1992) 197 ITR 575 (Ker); Godavarl Devi Sehgal v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 108 (A T) (Del). (iv) Where the authority giving the earlier decision had taken into consideration all material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Murugappa Chettair (S) (1992) 197 ITR 575 (Ker); Godavarl Devi Sehgal v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 108 (A T) (Del). (iv) Where the authority giving the earlier decision had taken into consideration all material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice

SURESH K JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Murugappa Chettair (S) (1992) 197 ITR 575 (Ker); Godavarl Devi Sehgal v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 108 (A T) (Del). (iv) Where the authority giving the earlier decision had taken into consideration all material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Murugappa Chettair (S) (1992) 197 ITR 575 (Ker); Godavarl Devi Sehgal v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 108 (A T) (Del). (iv) Where the authority giving the earlier decision had taken into consideration all material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Murugappa Chettair (S) (1992) 197 ITR 575 (Ker); Godavarl Devi Sehgal v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 108 (A T) (Del). (iv) Where the authority giving the earlier decision had taken into consideration all material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Murugappa Chettair (S) (1992) 197 ITR 575 (Ker); Godavarl Devi Sehgal v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 108 (A T) (Del). (iv) Where the authority giving the earlier decision had taken into consideration all material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Murugappa Chettair (S) (1992) 197 ITR 575 (Ker); Godavarl Devi Sehgal v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 108 (A T) (Del). (iv) Where the authority giving the earlier decision had taken into consideration all material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Murugappa Chettair (S) (1992) 197 ITR 575 (Ker); Godavarl Devi Sehgal v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 108 (A T) (Del). (iv) Where the authority giving the earlier decision had taken into consideration all material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice

VISHAL DUTT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

capital gains of Rs.18,61,041/- was brought to tax vide assessment orders dated 27.12.2010 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4.Aggrieved by the orders of A.O. dated 27.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The assessee reiterated the submissions before

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital gains." The mere fact that the agreement contains a non-compete clause, payment in respect whereof may not be chargeable to tax in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, does not enable us to hold that the agreement between the assessee and the purchaser is anything other than a transfer of the business of the assessee. A cursory perusal

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

capital gain done in these cases is consequently not sustainable. Hence we delete the same also. 56. As regards the addition of unsecured loan is concerned, we note that assessing officer has accepted that assessee has submitted the confirmation, ITR, bank statement of the parties. However he rejected by simply observing that investigation wing at Kolkata has reported that some

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

capital gain done in these cases is consequently not sustainable. Hence we delete the same also. 56. As regards the addition of unsecured loan is concerned, we note that assessing officer has accepted that assessee has submitted the confirmation, ITR, bank statement of the parties. However he rejected by simply observing that investigation wing at Kolkata has reported that some

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

BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result assessee appeal is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Bennett Coleman Vs. Acit – 1(1)(1) & Company Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aaykar The Times Of India Bhavan, Churchgate, Bldg, Dn Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb4373Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 1(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bennett Coleman 5Th Floor, Aaykar & Company Ltd., Bhavan, Churchgate, The Times Of India Mumbai – 400020. Bldg, Dn Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb4373Q Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Appellant/Respondent Shri Srinivasan By : Venkataraman.Ar Respondent/Appellant Shri. K.C. Selvamani. Dr By : Date Of Hearing 23.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

gain from shares subjected to STT and claimed exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of long term capital loss as claimed by the assessee. Ground nos. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 8. We find the Honble Tribunal