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

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

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

capital gains in the hands of transferor companies and not that he has directed the same should be taxed. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in such a direction and observation of ld. CIT(A); and he was well within the scope of section. 251

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

capital gains in the hands of transferor companies and not that he has directed the same should be taxed. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in such a direction and observation of ld. CIT(A); and he was well within the scope of section. 251

ATYANT CAPITAL INDIA FUND-I,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL) TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains as exempt under DTAA, but for the same source of income being\nlong term capital loss, it has sought to carry it forward by referring to the\nprovisions of Income Tax Act, which is not permissible as per law and also as\nper above order of ITAT, Mumbai\".\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

INCLINE REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was to be rejected, the Assessee was entitled to claim deduction for interest cost while computing Short Term Capital Gains arising from sale of mutual 8 Assessment Year 2015-2016 funds as the interest formed part of ‘cost of acquisition’. Reliance in this regards was placed on the following judicial precedents forming part

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

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

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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

capital gains taxable u/s 50 on depreciable assets. Similarly in Cadbury India Ltd 229 Taxman 05(Bom), tribunal allowing exemption u/s 54E was upheld. Similardecision was given in Perry(Estern) P.Ltd 384 ITR 264(Bom).In V.S.Dempo Co, Ltd 387 ITR 354,hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the view that deduction u/s 54E is allowable against gains assessable

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)

section 251 of the Act are indeed wide, but they are not unbounded. They must operate within the framework of issues arising out of the assessment before the CIT(A) and cannot extend to introducing new sources of income that were never the subject of consideration before the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji

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

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.\"\n7.14 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.\n\"Ans: I agree with

MINAL M AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

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.\"\n\n7.14 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.\n\n\"Ans: I agree

AJMERA PHARMASURE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

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.\"\n\n7.14 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.\n\n\"Ans: I agree