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

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 to the assessee. 7 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh

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

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 to the assessee. 7 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh

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

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 to the assessee. 7 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh

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

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 to the assessee. 7 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh

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

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 to the assessee. 7 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh

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

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 to the assessee. 7 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh

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

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 to the assessee. 7 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh

LATE PRAVINCHANDRA DWARKADAS DALAL (LEGAL HEIR HITEN PRAVINCHANDRA DALAL),MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 42(3)(1) ERSTWHILE CIRCLE 33(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 50 to arrive at a short-term capital gain of Rs.1,36,60,649/-. While computing this short-term capital gain, he computed notional depreciation from Assessment Year 2004-05 to Assessment Year 2016- 17 and reduced the WDV on 31.03.2003 from Rs.33,02,106/- to WDV as on 31.03.2016 for Rs.8,39,351/-. 6. As noted, there

KESHAV AND COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

gain; 9 Keshav and Company ITA 5639/Mum/2014 ITA 6276/Mum/2014 CO No.273/Mum/2015 (ii) There is no transfer and if at all it is a transfer of right, title, and interest in the firm by retiring partner and the same cannot be charged tax in the hands of the firm; (iii) The following conditions should be satisfied to invoke section

ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. KESHAV & COMPANY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

gain; 9 Keshav and Company ITA 5639/Mum/2014 ITA 6276/Mum/2014 CO No.273/Mum/2015 (ii) There is no transfer and if at all it is a transfer of right, title, and interest in the firm by retiring partner and the same cannot be charged tax in the hands of the firm; (iii) The following conditions should be satisfied to invoke section

ITO 32(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF VAIBHAV CO-OP. HSG. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Ito-32(3)(4) Vs. State Bank Of India Staff Room No.103, 1St Floor Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.8/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5324/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2011-12) State Bank Of India Vs. Ito-32(3)(4) Room No.103, 1St Floor Staff Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia Assessee By Shri Dr. P. Daniel Date Of Hearing 13/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

section 2(47) wef .04.1998. In the present case the decision of Mumbai High Court which has come much later is more relevant. On the basis of the above discussions and after considering the totality of facts and principles of law I have come to a conclusion that there is no incidence of capital gain in the hands

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

DHANANJAY MADHUKAR NAIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhananjay Madhukar Naik V. Ito 12(3)(3) 306, Meghdoot Chsl, Sahaji Raje Marg Room No. 1631, 16Th Floor Koldongri, Vile Parle (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400057 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Alrpn7498M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Masand Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

capital gain for purchase of a residential unit, he is entitled to deduction u/s. 54 irrespective of the fact that builder has not completed the construction or has not yet handed over the flat. 7.4. In the case of CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727/108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) (Placed at PB Page No. 173-175) it has been

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

VINOD L. GADHIYA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC5(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 40A(3), it was held that "In interpreting a taxing statute, the court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country." In the case on hand also the scrips were of unknown or lesser known company, sale price was fantastic, there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price

MAHUL CONSTRUCTOIN CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Mahul Construction Income Tax Officer, Corporation Ward 31(2)(3), M/S Thar & Co. Chartered Room No. 704, C-11, Accountants, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. 203, Capri, Opp. Hdil Tower, Bnadra Kurla Complex, Anant Kanekar Mar, Bandra Bandra (East), (East), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aamfm5810E

197 (Mum) has held that such transaction amounted to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act, inasmuch as the partner i.e. Sudhakar Shetty could be said to have assigned, released and relinquished his interest and share in partnership and its assets in favour of the continuing partners to assignment and accordingly confirmed the capital gains

MAHALAXMI INNOVATIVE SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4856/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd. Dcit Cir 2(2) बिधम/ 1004, 10Th Floor, Maker Chambers-V, Mumbai Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm9810C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

197/- and 71 sale transactions of Rs.20,76,67,483/-. The A.O. being of the view that the planned purchase and sale transactions of the aforesaid magnitude were in the nature of ‘business transactions’, therefore called upon the assessee to explain as to how the same had been shown as short term/long term capital gain in its return of income