VERITAS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

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

197/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld CIT(A), and the aforesaid legal ground was raised before him, and contended that the additions have been made by AO u/s 153A of the Act without the aid of any incriminating material found during the course of search

JT. CIT (OSD) ,CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. VERITAS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

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

197/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld CIT(A), and the aforesaid legal ground was raised before him, and contended that the additions have been made by AO u/s 153A of the Act without the aid of any incriminating material found during the course of search

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197

DCIT-CC 3(2), MUMBAI vs. ANIRUDDHA N MALPANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

sections 143(2) Smt. Anjali A. Malpani Shri Aniruddha N. Malpani A.Y. 2015–16 and 142(1) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served on the assessee. On the basis of post-search proceedings, it was found that the assessee had short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain of Rs.2,06,55,197

ANJALI A. MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

sections 143(2) Smt. Anjali A. Malpani Shri Aniruddha N. Malpani A.Y. 2015–16 and 142(1) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served on the assessee. On the basis of post-search proceedings, it was found that the assessee had short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain of Rs.2,06,55,197

ANIRUDDHA N. MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC - 3 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

sections 143(2) Smt. Anjali A. Malpani Shri Aniruddha N. Malpani A.Y. 2015–16 and 142(1) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served on the assessee. On the basis of post-search proceedings, it was found that the assessee had short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain of Rs.2,06,55,197

DCIT-CC3(2), MUMBAI vs. ANJALI A MALPANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

sections 143(2) Smt. Anjali A. Malpani Shri Aniruddha N. Malpani A.Y. 2015–16 and 142(1) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served on the assessee. On the basis of post-search proceedings, it was found that the assessee had short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain of Rs.2,06,55,197

INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MITESH MEHTA HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

197 Total 99,03,921 6. The assessee claimed the profit arising from the above sale of shares Term capital gain u/s 10 (38) in the Return of income filed on 19/08/2015 7. The said return was selected for complete scrutiny vide Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/143 (2)/2016-17/1000203519 (1) dated 28 July 2016 12 Mitesh Mehta

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gains and hence it was not necessary to file the 4 Seema Heera, AY 2010-11 return for the year under consideration. Further, it was submitted that assessee had made an application with the office of ITO(IT)-3(1) for issuance of certificate u/s. 197 of the Act which was issued

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

197/-. After availing\ndeduction under Chapter VIA of ₹.1,83,524/-, total income is declared at\n*.18,88,000/- and Agricultural income is at ₹.9,16,014/-.\n3. Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information from Addl.\nDirector General (Systems)-2, New Delhi and it is observed that the\nassessee Shri Balkrishna Gajanan Thopte is also involved in transaction\nof Penny

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 arising to the assessee is not chargeable to tax in India according to Article 13 of the Double taxation Avoidance agreement between India and Mauritius. . The assessee also produced the application made under Section 197

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

197, following observation of Hon'ble\nCourt clinches the issue that is raised for consideration before this\nTribunal in the present facts of the case.:\n“5. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is\nthe formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment