ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

J P TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

220/- instead of returned income of Rs. 9,49,00,320. J. P. Trust On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, current year short-term capital loss incurred u/s 111A amounting to Rs. 43,75,895/- ought to be set off against current year short term capital gains taxable under normal provision. 2. The appellant

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

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 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

capital gains were added under section 68 as unexplained cash credits. 5.2.8 Having discussed the facts of the case and the judicial precedents relied upon, I am of the considerate view that the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.27,99,270 is justified and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed

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

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

2) SCC 453.\n9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred\nin holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers\nof the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to\nthe findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account\nstatement of the Respondent was called for from the broker\nM/s_SMC_Global

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

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

2) SCC 453.\n9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred\nin holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers\nof the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to\nthe findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account\nstatement of the Respondent was called for from the broker\nM/s_SMC_Global

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Capital Gains 69A Total KB AY 2014-2015 1,15,96,000 - 1,15,96,000 AY 2015-2016 4,96,95,000 2,50,000 4,99,45,000 AY 2016-2017 2,98,20,000 - 2,98,20,000 The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others

M/S USHA VINOD PAREKH (LR OF LATE SHRI VINODKUMAR SHESHMAL PAREKH) ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-22(1) (ERSTWHILE THE ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE-21(3), MUMBAI

Section 68 of the Act. The Learned Authorised Representative also invited attention to the facts that 34,401 Share of the Company with aggregate purchase cost of INR 10,32,914/- were lying unsold. On 5 the strength of the aforesaid, the Learned Authorised Representative submitted that transactions under consideration cannot be regarded as bogus. The judicial precedents relied upon

ALPESH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

REENA A AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

JITEN K. AJMERA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE KISHORE H. AJMERA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

JASMIN K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

MANISH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

AVANI J AJMERA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

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

2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of \nRs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following \nthe decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case \nof CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the \ncase of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries