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

ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD ACC,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

234,895,280/– is taxed at the rate of 30% without utilizing the brought forward short-term capital loss for set of purposes. The fact shows that during the year the assessee has on short- 047. term capital gain under section

ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD DIST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

234,895,280/– is taxed at the rate of 30% without utilizing the brought forward short-term capital loss for set of purposes. The fact shows that during the year the assessee has on short- 047. term capital gain under section

ISHARES MSCI EM IMI ESG SCREENED UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

234,895,280/– is taxed at the rate of 30% without utilizing the brought forward short-term capital loss for set of purposes. The fact shows that during the year the assessee has on short- 047. term capital gain under section

ISHARES MSCI INDIA UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

234,895,280/– is taxed at the rate of 30% without utilizing the brought forward short-term capital loss for set of purposes. The fact shows that during the year the assessee has on short- 047. term capital gain under section

ISHARES EMSC MAURITIUS CO ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

234,895,280/– is taxed at the rate of 30% without utilizing the brought forward short-term capital loss for set of purposes. The fact shows that during the year the assessee has on short- 047. term capital gain under section

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

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

capital gains u/s 54 of the Act, as he has complied with the conditions prescribed in that section. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s 54 of the Act as claimed by the assessee.” Thus, following the aforesaid decision, we find merit in the claim

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

gain. Where out of sale consideration of the property in question the assessee made payment to two persons who claimed to be legal heirs along with the assessee inheriting said property, such payment made to remove encumbrance was deductible from the consideration received Ground No. 5 DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,31,85,359/- BEING THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE RENOVATION/REPAIR

BUNKIM FINANCE & INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 263 of the Act, on the footing that the assessee is a regular trader in shares and securities was ultimately dropped by order dated 19.03.2010. In the notice issued on 26.11.2009, the CIT expressed the view that if the assessee is to be treated as a regular trader in shares and securities, the holding period of the shares does

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

capital gain of Rs. 51 lakhs the appellant has that the same has been claimed as exempt u/s.54EC by investment in REC bonds. Once there is not expenditure claimed in the 22 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, computation of income against any taxable income, there cannot be any disallowance of administrative expenditure also. This view is supported

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

capital gain of Rs. 51 lakhs the appellant has that the same has been claimed as exempt u/s.54EC by investment in REC bonds. Once there is not expenditure claimed in the 22 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, computation of income against any taxable income, there cannot be any disallowance of administrative expenditure also. This view is supported

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

capital gain of Rs. 51 lakhs the appellant has that the same has been claimed as exempt u/s.54EC by investment in REC bonds. Once there is not expenditure claimed in the 22 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, computation of income against any taxable income, there cannot be any disallowance of administrative expenditure also. This view is supported

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

capital gain of Rs. 51 lakhs the appellant has that the same has been claimed as exempt u/s.54EC by investment in REC bonds. Once there is not expenditure claimed in the 22 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, computation of income against any taxable income, there cannot be any disallowance of administrative expenditure also. This view is supported

DY CIT CENTRAL CIR-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AMIT AVINASH BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

capital gain arising out of sale of land, the issue is distinguishable. With regard to Nikhilsawhney v. ACIT (supra), this case was pronounced on 17.08.2020 and subsequently Coordinate Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, when revenue preferred appeal before Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the issue under consideration reached finality

DY. CIT CC- 2(3), MUMBAI vs. AMIT AVINASH BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

capital gain arising out of sale of land, the issue is distinguishable. With regard to Nikhilsawhney v. ACIT (supra), this case was pronounced on 17.08.2020 and subsequently Coordinate Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, when revenue preferred appeal before Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the issue under consideration reached finality

DY CIT CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

capital gain arising out of sale of land, the issue is distinguishable. With regard to Nikhilsawhney v. ACIT (supra), this case was pronounced on 17.08.2020 and subsequently Coordinate Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, when revenue preferred appeal before Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the issue under consideration reached finality

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

gain realized from the sale of capital asset should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house. If the assessee has invested the money in construction of residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition

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

234/-, on account of Long Term Capital Gain, under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During