ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

211,850\ninstead of the returned income of Rs.2,072,904,040;\nMerits of the case:\nRejecting the hierarchy of set-off of Short-Term Capital losses adopted\nby the Appellant:\n2. erred in rejecting the hierarchy of set-off of short-term capital losses\nadopted by the Appellant and thereby, taxing the gross short-term capital\ngains in respect

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

211,850\ninstead of the returned income of Rs.2,072,904,040;\nMerits of the case:\nRejecting the hierarchy of set-off of Short-Term Capital losses adopted\nby the Appellant:\n2. erred in rejecting the hierarchy of set-off of short-term capital losses\nadopted by the Appellant and thereby, taxing the gross short-term capital\ngains in respect

ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN ETF(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN MAURITIUS CO),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

211,850\ninstead of the returned income of Rs.2,072,904,040;\nMerits of the case:\nRejecting the hierarchy of set-off of Short-Term Capital losses adopted\nby the Appellant:\n2. erred in rejecting the hierarchy of set-off of short-term capital losses\nadopted by the Appellant and thereby, taxing the gross short-term capital\ngains in respect

ISHARES INDIA 50 ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES INDIA MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

211,850\ninstead of the returned income of Rs.2,072,904,040;\nMerits of the case:\nRejecting the hierarchy of set-off of Short-Term Capital losses adopted\nby the Appellant:\n2. erred in rejecting the hierarchy of set-off of short-term capital losses\nadopted by the Appellant and thereby, taxing the gross short-term capital\ngains in respect

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 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 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

capitals gains arising to them. 9.2 In such cases, the assessing officers are generally disallowing the claim on the basis of the following: i. By making a reference to section 1 of the Act which relates to Short title, extent and commencement of the Act and mentions that the Act extends to the whole of India. The AO's view

ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S EUROFINANCE TRAININF & PUBLISHING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

211, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACE3332Q Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri Revenue by : Shri Pitta Samuel Date of Hearing – 19/09/2022 Date of Order – 23/09/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 14/12/2018, passed under section 250 of the Income

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

section 54/54F, it is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited  CIT & ANR. vs. SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA - 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka High Court) Capital gains

ACTION FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

211 shares of BSE Ltd. at Rs.3,03,80,700/-. 3.2 Upon assessee appeal Ld. CIT-A confirmed the AO’s action. He held as under: “I have considered the submission of the AR, and I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the Ld. AR cannot be admitted as neither it has claimed the same

PRADIPKUMAR P. KANAKIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR13(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradipkumar Purshottam Dcit, Kanakia, Circle-13(2), बनाम/ C/O- Pratap Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18, Steel Yard House, Iron Mumbai-400020 Market, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400009 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Afvpk8451P

capital gain in purchase of additional residential building. The context in which the expression, a residential house” is used in Section 54 makes it clear that, it was not the intention of the legislation to convey the meaning that: it refers to a single residential house, if, that was the intention, they would have used the word

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub- section (1), exceeds (b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

211 of the Companies Act, are read in conjunction with sub section (1A) as well as the Explanation to section 115Jof the Act”. (emphasis added) 9. On the second proposition that the receipt which is not chargeable to tax under section 4 cannot be brought to tax under section 115JB, Mr. Kaushal submitted that the first and foremost condition

ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

211 of the Companies Act, are read in conjunction with sub section (1A) as well as the Explanation to section 115Jof the Act”. (emphasis added) 9. On the second proposition that the receipt which is not chargeable to tax under section 4 cannot be brought to tax under section 115JB, Mr. Kaushal submitted that the first and foremost condition

ACIT 28 (2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. M/S NEEL SIDDHI DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Gain" as offered by the Assessee. The reasons provided by the AO in his assessment order are summarised hereunder: a. The said land was shown as "Stock in trade" in the balance sheet of the Assessee; b. The Assessee is engaged in the business of development of real estate and without land no development can start. Hence, the argument

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The Tribunal while dismissing the 24 Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai. appeals filed by the revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold

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

Capital Gains on sale of shares etc. were examined after the conclusion of the search action which cannot be said that to be incriminating material unearthed at the time of the search action. It was further submitted that in the assessment order there is no reference to any incriminatingmaterial while making the said additions/disallowances. 6.3 I have considered the submissions

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

Capital Gains on sale of shares etc. were examined after the conclusion of the search action which cannot be said that to be incriminating material unearthed at the time of the search action. It was further submitted that in the assessment order there is no reference to any incriminatingmaterial while making the said additions/disallowances. 6.3 I have considered the submissions

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

Capital Gains on sale of shares etc. were examined after the conclusion of the search action which cannot be said that to be incriminating material unearthed at the time of the search action. It was further submitted that in the assessment order there is no reference to any incriminatingmaterial while making the said additions/disallowances. 6.3 I have considered the submissions

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

Capital Gains on sale of shares etc. were examined after the conclusion of the search action which cannot be said that to be incriminating material unearthed at the time of the search action. It was further submitted that in the assessment order there is no reference to any incriminatingmaterial while making the said additions/disallowances. 6.3 I have considered the submissions