I SHARES ESG AWARE MSCI EM ETF ,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\nstatistical purposes

248\n2,09,87,996\nShort-term capital loss other than\nthose covered under section 111A\nof the Act\nNIL\nShort-term capital loss covered\nunder section 111A of the Act\n9,99,56,707\nNet Short-term capital gains

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NARENDRA GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

capital gain. 5.7 The ld counsel further ld counsel further relied on the decision of the Hon' ble on the decision of the Hon' ble the case of Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh Supreme Court in the case of [2002] 254 IT 112 (SC) [2002] 254 IT 112 (SC) wherein it was held that

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 which is exempted under section 10(38) of the Act:-  Copy of share allotment  Copies of sale bills  Copy of bank statement  Copy of demat account  Copy of contract notes Page No. 24 Udayan Grover xx. At the Bombay Stock Exchange, the price of the shares of M/s Greencrest Financial Services Limited had continuously been in the range

VINOD L. GADHIYA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC5(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 133A(3)(iii) makes it clear that the material collected and statement recorded during the survey u/s 133A of the Act are not conclusive piece of evidences by itself. The aforesaid decision was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in CIT , Salem vs S.Khader Khan in Civil Appeal No. 13224 of 2008 & 6747 of 2012 dated 20.9.2012, wherein their

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

section 270A of the Act\nThat on the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned AO\nhas erred in initiating penalty proceedings for underreporting of income under\nSection 270A of the Act in respect of assessing the gains arising on transfer of\nKalpataru Properties as short-term capital gains as against long-term capital\ngains

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

capital gain cannot be denied to the assesse. (A copy of order is placed on page no. 108 to 121) Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Manishkumar Baid Vs ACIT ITAT Kolkatta it was held that rejecting the assesse claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act is not correct. The tribunal has relied upon the judgment

CARESTREAM HEALTH INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Carestream Health Inc Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Carestream Health Income Tax, Range-2(1)(1) India Private Limited Scindia House, M.M.Road Sunteck Centre Ballard Pier 1St Floor, Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 028 Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aaecc6050H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 2(47) of the Act. d) The assessee further submitted that the scheme of capital reduction requires prior approval of the Hon‟ble High Court. Before granting approval for such reduction of capital, the Court had to be satisfied that the consent of the creditors to the reduction of capital is obtained, or the claims or debts

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

section 48 of the Act, in the context of ownership for house property income, is misplaced for capital gains computation. Fifthly, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee shall be construed to have held the asset for the purpose of acquisition and computation of LTCG from the date of agreement to sale when substantial payment were made and not from

AKSHAY JANAK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC, DELHI

248. He submitted that the Capital Asset was held by 5 ITA. No. 267//Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the Appellant for more than 36 months and therefore, the capital gains arising on transfer of such Capital Asset were in the nature of long-term capital gains. The transfer of the Capital Asset took place on 30.09.2012 during the previous

DEEPA PAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ms. Deepa Pamnani Vs. The Income Tax Officer Pamnanai Hospital & Ward 20(1)(1) Research Center Piramal Chamber 33 Cf +6Qc , Railway Station Lal Baug Road, Prem Colony, Mandasur Mumbai 400012 Madhya Pradesh 458001 Pan Cstpp4472L (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Ca & Mr. Kapil Jain Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

section 54 F of the act if the assessee acquired a house property within specified time by using sale consideration, then proportionate capital gain is not charged to tax. Thus, Assessee has purchased a house property for Rs 3 Crores. In case of PCIT V Vembu Vaidyanathan [(2019) 413 ITR 248

ALKA RAJESH VANIGOTA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-52, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

CAPITAL GAIN TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS\nOF THE TRANSACTION EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(38) ARE\nAS UNDER:\ni.\nThe assessee is ainvestor in securities.\nii.\nThe assessee received a letter from M/s. Marigold Glass\nIndustries Ltd. (now known as Greencrest Financial Services\nLimited)to Mrs. Alka Vanigota informingabout their Preferential Equity\nShares issue

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

M/S. ASARIA LALJI VADOR,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

capital gain or sale of shares and deduction claimed u/s. 54EC of the Act after gathering informations relating to the above by relying on section 263(1) Explanation 2 and case laws of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248

MRS. URMILA JAGDISH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 33(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle 33(3), Mrs. Urmila Jagdish Bandra Kurla Mehta Complex, Bandra (E), 1604, E-Wing, Agarwal Vs. Mmbai-400 051 Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Adipm5257E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

248 (Bom.), and submitted that in the said decision, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, after taking note of CBDT Circular No. 471 dated 15.10.1986 and Circular No. 672 dated 16.12.1993, has categorically held that for the purpose of computation of capital gains, the date of allotment of a residential unit under a construction scheme is to be regarded

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

Capital gain. Ground No. 7 7. To considered Technical Management fees of Rs.6,95,625/- as shipping business income for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s.33AC. Ground No. 8 8. Rectification of MAT credit allowed u/s.ll5JAA is allowed as deduction in subsequent years when tax is charged as per the provisions of the Act to avoid charging double taxation which

RAKESH SHANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-18(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

248/- as made by the AO under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit as against the long term capital gain

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

248 to 257 of the PB. In that case, the assessee had ultra-short term fixed deposits. The interest income earned thereon of Rs. 7,35,674/- was credited to capital work-in-progress by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated this income as 'income from other sources' u/s. 56 of the Act and the CIT(A) upheld the order

ENVISION INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -CIR 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

capital gain and the Tribunal deleted the penalty 6 M/s. Envision Investment Consultants on the ground that there is only change of head of incomes which is not perverse and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as not having any substantial question of law. Therefore, on this count the penalty is liable