ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain for the purpose of Section 50 and such deeming\nfiction is with regard to applicability of Section 48 & 49. The decision of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court cannot be a binding precedent on the issue which was not there at all.\nIt is axiomatic that the decision cannot be relied upon which was not the issue or\ncontext

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gain for the purpose of Section 50 and such deeming fiction is with regard to applicability of Section 48 & 49. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a binding precedent on the issue which was not there at all. It is axiomatic that the decision cannot be relied upon which was not the issue or context

EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 70, I find that there is no prohibition nor the Act compels the assessee to first set off short term capital gain with STT against short term capital loss with STT and then allows set off against short term capital gain without STT. In absence of any specific mode of set off provided in the Act and in absence

FIDELITY SALEM STREET TRUST FIDELITY SAI EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 70, I find that there is no prohibition nor the Act compels the assessee to first set off short term capital gain with STT against short term capital loss with STT and then allows set off against short term capital gain without STT. In absence of any specific mode of set off provided in the Act and in absence

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

capital gain for the\npurpose of Section 50 and such deeming fiction is with regard to applicability of Section 48 & 49.\nThe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a binding precedent on the issue which was\nnot there at all. It is axiomatic that the decision cannot be relied upon which was not the issue or\ncontext

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital loss or not.\nThe Hon'ble High Court held that consequent to assessee's\ndefault in not paying the balance of money on allotment, its right\nin the shares stood extinguished on its forfeiture and the loss\nsuffered by the assessee, i.e., non-recovery of share application\nmoney is consequent to the forfeiture of its right in the shares

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS FID EMG MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )2(3)(1), MUMBAI

201)\n(223,701,502)\n(9,77,33,796)\n174,64,01,537\n164,86,67,741\n\n5.1.\nThe underlying facts show that the assessee had short\nterm capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital\nloss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains\non non-STT paid shares and short term capital losses

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS EMERGING MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

201)\n(223,701,502)\n(9,77,33,796)\n174,64,01,537\n164,86,67,741\n5. 1. The underlying facts show that the assessee had short\nterm capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital\nloss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains\non non-STT paid shares and short term capital losses

MATRIX PARTNERS INDIA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

201 ITR 737 (SC)/ AIR 1994 SC 1267). In our considered opinion meaning of 'capital gains' in article 13 of the DTAA would obtain the same meaning as held by the Hon'ble SC (supra). Thus, in view of the above authentic meaning of 'capital gains', the assessee cannot be allowed to split gains and losses from transfer of equity

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

201, 2nd Floor, Blue Ridge Township, Hinjewadi, Pune and claimed the deduction thereof from capital gain based on letter of allotment dated 12/08/2017. 09. Capital gain computed by the assessee was sales consideration of Rs 57 lakhs, less indexed cost of acquisition of Rs 32,01663/-, resulting into capital gain of s 24,98,337/-. From this it claimed deduction

SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

section 70, I find that there is no prohibition nor the Act compels the assessee to first set off short term capital gain with STT against short term capital loss with STT and then allows set off against short term capital gain without STT. In absence of any specific mode of set off provided in the Act and in absence

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

section 147, of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long-term securities\n(Bogus transactions) Assessment year 2006-\n07 Assesse purchased 3000 shares of\ncompany 'T' through a stock broker These\nshares were transferred to assesses demat\naccount - However, said stock broker submitted\nbefore authorities that he was providing\naccommodation entries for taking profit

INDIUM IV (MAURITIUS) HOLDINGS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

201, 2nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius PAN: AACCI4907P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anish Thacker & Assessee Represented by : Shri Pranay Gandhi Department Represented by : Shri Pankaj Mehta Date of conclusion of Hearing : 08.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 147, of 260 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains IN THE ITAT - Income arising from transfer of long- AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased 3000 Income-tax Officer, Ward- shares of company 'T' through a stock 10 (3), Ahmedabad* broker - These shares were transferred OCTOBER

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 55(2) to see the legislative pattern following chart is drawn to see the taxability of capital gains arising on transfer of STT paid long term equity shares. 30 Ramesh Jaisinghani Transfer of STT paid Capital gain on transfer of STT paid long long term equity shares term equity during the period Listed shares Unlisted Unlisted shares shares

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

section 147, of the Income- (Ahmedabad - Trib.) IN THE tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' transfer of long-term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased 3000 shares of Income-tax Officer, Ward- 10 company 'T' through a stock broker - These shares (3), Ahmedabad* OCTOBER 21, were transferred

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

section 10(38) of the Act; in the meantime, the\noperator register the prices of the stock and gradually rise its\nprise many times, offered 500 to 1000 times; that this is done\nthrough low-volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of\nthe operator at a predetermined price; that when the price\nreaches the desired level the beneficiary

CHITRA AVDHESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

section 10(38) of the Act; in the meantime, the\noperator register the prices of the stock and gradually rise its\nprise many times, offered 500 to 1000 times; that this is done\nthrough low-volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of\nthe operator at a predetermined price; that when the price\nreaches the desired level the beneficiary

BANG EQUITY BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

capital gains is misconceived and deserves to be set right in appeal 2. Ground no. 2: On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the leamed Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in sustaining the action of the learned Assessing Officer in not allowing the cost of acquisition of the shares of BSE Ltd at the written down value