ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

capital gain and they have also constructed residential houses. In order to establish the same, the assessees submitted before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) several material evidence, viz., invitation card printed for the house-warming ceremony to be held on July 12, 2003. The assessees have also produced the completion certificates from the Municipal authority on January

NETESOFT INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

Gains" and accordingly, shall not be available for set off or carry forward against any other source or head of income under any other provisions of the Act either. In the result, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the set off and carry forward of long term capital loss of Rs, 3,11,80,559/- arising from

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 54F(4) of 1961 Act stipulates mandatory condition of depositing the unutilized amount in capital gain account with bank or as specified by Central Government. 9. We have considered rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including case laws relied upon. We have observed that assessee transferred 837 shares of Bombino Video Private Limited

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 14A, directed Ld. AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of exempt income and deleted the balance disallowance of Rs.6.39 Lacs. The same has given rise to one of the grounds of cross-appeals. 3.3 Upon due consideration, we find that as per settled legal position, the provisions of Rule 8D were not applicable to the year under consideration

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

251, the AO and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating the capital gain earned from sale of these shares, as business profits, which were entered by the assessee as investment in books of account. There is also no dispute to the well settled legal proposition that res judicata do not strictly apply to the income tax proceedings

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

251, the AO and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating the capital gain earned from sale of these shares, as business profits, which were entered by the assessee as investment in books of account. There is also no dispute to the well settled legal proposition that res judicata do not strictly apply to the income tax proceedings

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

251, the AO and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating the capital gain earned from sale of these shares, as business profits, which were entered by the assessee as investment in books of account. There is also no dispute to the well settled legal proposition that res judicata do not strictly apply to the income tax proceedings

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

251, the AO and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating the capital gain earned from sale of these shares, as business profits, which were entered by the assessee as investment in books of account. There is also no dispute to the well settled legal proposition that res judicata do not strictly apply to the income tax proceedings

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Capital Gain' instead of treating the same as income under the head 'Income from other sources' under the Income Tax Act?" 3. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA) erred in not accepting the working of the AO for determination of cost of acquisition of the property as on 01.04.1981 which

SANJAY KUMAR PODDAR,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Jain & Associates, Circle 15(1),Matru Mandir, Vs. 12 Engineer Building, 265, Princess Mumbai-400 006. Street, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan:Aabpp 2018 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3961/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Vs. Jain & Associates, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr Assessee By: Shri S.L. Jain

251, the AO was not justified in treating the capital gain earned from sale of these shares, as business profits, which were entered by the assessee as investment in books of account. There is also no dispute to the well settled legal proposition that res judicata do not strictly apply to the income tax proceedings, but at the very same

A.C.I.T.19(2), MUMBAI vs. ALKA KIRITKUMAR UPADHYAY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2617/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) A.C.I.T. – 19(2), Smt. Alka Kiritkumar बनाम/ Room No. 315, 3 Rd Floor, Upadhyay, V. Piramal Chambers, Alka Bldg., 6T H Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai –400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapu0228Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(2) of the Act , it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee has offered short term capital gain of Rs. 44,97,330/- for taxation in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee was asked to explain why the income derived from short term capital gain should not be treated as income from business

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 gains even though the sale deed mentioned the sale consideration as Rs. 2,66,00,000/-; that out of the sale consideration he had purchased two flats in Mayfair Apartment, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and he is entitled to claim deduction/exemption under section 54 of the Act for an amount of Rs.93,80,192/- and that in view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the cross appeal filed by the revenue as well as\nassessee stands dismissed

capital gains of the slump\nsale in accordance with the provisions of section 50B that require to\ntreat cost of acquisition and cost of improvement and is allowable\nas a deduction as per section 48 (ii) of the act as net worth of the\nundertaking, and not to consider the expenditure incurred for the\npurpose of transfer as per section

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains amounting to Rs.22,49,01,802/- being compensation on acquisition of land in AY 2016-2017 and taxing the interest of Rs 44,29,98,502/- u/s 56(2)(viii) in AY 2016-2017 being interest on delay in payment of compensation on acquisition of land without appreciating that the compensation and the consequential interest is not taxable

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains amounting to Rs.22,49,01,802/- being compensation on acquisition of land in AY 2016-2017 and taxing the interest of Rs 44,29,98,502/- u/s 56(2)(viii) in AY 2016-2017 being interest on delay in payment of compensation on acquisition of land without appreciating that the compensation and the consequential interest is not taxable

GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ Gic Housing Finance Ltd. Addl. Cit Rg 2(1) Royal Insurance Building, R.No. 561, 5 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, J. Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Churchgate, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg2755R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Amit Kirve Revenue By : Shri A.M. Mittal, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 22/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 21.10.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 22.10.2013 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 2011-12. I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016

251(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. None of the authorities below viz. AO and learned CIT(A) during the course of these three proceedings had considered it worthwhile and necessary to exercise their powers under the provisions of Section 131 of the 1961 Act or Section 133(6) of the 1961 Act to issue summons/notices to relevant professionals/advisors

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. - 7(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

gains of business or profession” was contrary to the accounting principles laid down by Accounting Standard-2 (for short “AS- 2”); (ii). that the ICAI had issued “Guidance Note on Tax Audit under Section 44AB of the I-T Act”, which specifically requires the formats in which information as regards the valuation of purchases, sales and inventories under both inclusive

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:

capital gain shown by the assessee as income chargeable to tax under section 68 of The Income Tax Act as unexplained income. Therefore, the learned assessing officer accepted the transaction but the learned CIT – A transaction considering the same as unexplained income of the assessee without issuing any notice under section 251