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

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

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

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

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

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

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

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

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

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

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

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

CAPITAL GAIN TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(38) ARE AS UNDER: i. The appellant is an investor in securities for last several years. ii. The assessee received a letter from M/s. Marigold Glass Industries Ltd. (now known as Greencrest Financial Services Limited) to Udayan Grover informing about their Preferential Equity Shares Issue

ITO-28.3.1, NAVI MUMBAI vs. SEEMA NARENDRA BAPNA, NERUL

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

xviii. Computation of long-term capital gain xix. Computation of short-term capital gain 7. The learned assessing officer after considering the explanation of the assessee held that there are exit providers in case of the assessee and her family members. The learned assessing officer noted that however due to paucity of time further enquiries could not be completed

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed. It may be noted that deduction u/s.54E is pari-materia to the one u/s.54EC, both requiring the assessee to make investment in specified asset/certain bonds within a period of six months after the date of transfer of the asset on which capital gain arises

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

24 . 11 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The appellant, M/s. Credit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro And Small Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] 2

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

24. 4217/Mum/2017 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 3- 24/1055384 587(1) 24.08.2023 DCIT- 1(1(2), Mumbai 30.03.2018 143(3) r.w.s. 250 2013-14 Revenue [Appeal against order giving effect, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 250] 25. 2666/Mum/2024 ITBA/APL/ S/250/2023- 24/1062378 628(1) 11.03.2024 DCIT, Range 1(1)(2), Mumbai 26.02.2018 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) 2014-15 Assessee 26 2980/Mum/2024 ITBA/APL/ S/250/2023-

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

xviii) Statement of computation of Long term capital gains from sale of shares of Robinson Impex (India) Ltd. 48-54 (xix) Copy of the return of income for A.Y. 2005-06, Balance Sheet of assessee as at 31.3.2005 and Statement showing investment in shares filed along with return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 showing purchase of 25,000 shares

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

gains the assessee has increased Grasim Industries Ltd. the net worth of the unit by about Rs.389.16 crs. after the sale consideration has been fixed, therefore, net worth of the unit should be taken as on date of the framework agreement i.e. 30.06.2008 and not the date of transfer i.e. 22.05.2009." 14. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

24)(xviii) of the Act, is\neffective from the assessment year 2016-17, as this appeal pertains to the\n assessment year prior thereto, the nature of the subsidy is to be determined as per\nthe purpose test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld. AO has stated in\nthe assessment order that the subsidy was available

AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR -8(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such assets was squarely covered by the provisions of Section 45 and accordingly they were taxable under

DCIT CC 8(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such assets was squarely covered by the provisions of Section 45 and accordingly they were taxable under

DCIT CC 8(4) ., MUMBAI vs. M/S. AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such assets was squarely covered by the provisions of Section 45 and accordingly they were taxable under

DCIT C.C. 8(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such assets was squarely covered by the provisions of Section 45 and accordingly they were taxable under