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

6. Before us, the assessee has Before us, the assessee has filed a paper book containing filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 250

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

6. Before us, the assessee has Before us, the assessee has filed a paper book containing filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 250

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

6. Before us, the assessee has Before us, the assessee has filed a paper book containing filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 250

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

6. Before us, the assessee has Before us, the assessee has filed a paper book containing filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 250

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 ()

section 90(2), the Ld. A.O. has granted the beneficial option to the applicant at the preference of the Applicant itself. 11. Treaty Provisions are applicable in re/ qua "Income" and not "sources". In this case, there has been one single species of Income, "capital gains" that too, Long Term Capital Gains. 7. To sum up, as per facts

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 of the income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Commission expenses of Rs.2101981/-: Commission has been paid by my client is Rs.2101981/- for the purpose of sale of Bandra Flat, which has been fully affirmed by the agent which has been incurred by my client, which has been properly claimed by my client, even legal fees paid to Mr. Subhash

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

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

section 68of the Income Tax Act, 1961without\nconsidering the documentary evidences submitted by respondent\nduring the assessment proceedings and passed order dated\n29.12.2017 raising a demand of Rs.2,27,19,630/-.\n12. The Ld. AO did not do analysis of facts and he only relied on information,\nwithout appreciating evidences. Ld. A.O. did not apply his mind and made\naddition

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

6 ITA NO 457/Mum/2025 AY: 2018-19 ISC Specialty Chemicals LLP compliance. A company needs to comply with so many regulations in comparison to an LLP. The asset value of the appellant is more than 5 crores. Hence, the Ld.AO is right in taxing the amount as capital gain. 4.3 The appellant has contended that it has not claimed

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the\nLearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National\nFaceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ('Ld. CIT(A)'), for the\n assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the\nfollowing grounds of appeal:\n1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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)

capital gains on share transactions for taxation purpose in the tax returns of relevant assessment year. The assessee has held shares for a reasonable period of time & with prudent investments some of which have borne fruits. The assessee has also made several bad investments in various companies in which there has made substantial losses. FURTHER RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ONFOLLOWINGRECENTPENNY

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

gains addition, the Tribunal held that the lands sold were agricultural lands, situated beyond 8 km from the municipal limits (based on physical measurement and Google Maps evidence), and therefore not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act. The Revenue's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

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 as unexplained cash credit, Rs. 1,25,00,000/- made on account of treating unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 62,81,000/- disallowed under section 57 totally amounting to Rs. 6,46,91,500/- may kindly be deleted and the income declared by the assessee may be accepted.” 10. After considering detailed submissions

CHERYL OSCAR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2015-16, date of order 19.01.2024.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(1)(2), Mumbai (in short, ‘the A.O.’) passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assesseehas taken the following grounds of appeal

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

capital gain in the shares of the above company, the case of the assessee was reopened after recording of the reasons for reopening and obtaining necessary approval. as it was found that income chargeable to tax for the impugned assessment has escaped assessment, Therefore, notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 6/9/2016. 6. During the course

JT. CIT (OSD) ,CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. VERITAS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

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

capital gain. Therefore, on the same reasoning as given Tribunal in assessee’s own group cases (supra), we reverse the order of Ld CIT(A) and confirm the addition to the tune of Rs.2,00,76,725/- as well as commission of Rs.10,03,836/-. 17. The other grounds of appeal of the revenue are general in nature

VERITAS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

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

capital gain. Therefore, on the same reasoning as given Tribunal in assessee’s own group cases (supra), we reverse the order of Ld CIT(A) and confirm the addition to the tune of Rs.2,00,76,725/- as well as commission of Rs.10,03,836/-. 17. The other grounds of appeal of the revenue are general in nature

ITO-28.3.1, NAVI MUMBAI vs. SEEMA NARENDRA BAPNA, NERUL

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

section 10 (38) of the act of Rs. 22,652,350/– on sale of shares of Surabhi Chemicals &Investments Limited. Assessee has also shown short-term capital gain on sale of the shares of same company for Rs. 34,053 in respect of trade made on 1/1/2014. The learned assessing officer in paragraph number 4 of the order recorded

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appears)-51, Mumbai for the assessment year 2016-17.\n\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from salary and other sources. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed thereby declaring