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)

251/- towards acquisition of aforesaid new residential house before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of 1961 Act on 31-07-2011. The assessee did not deposit the balance net consideration on sale of shares of Rs. 41,27,145/- with capital gain account maintained with bank as stipulated

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

gains arising on transfer of capital asset was not utilized for 28 Mehta Charity Trust acquiring another capital asset as per the provision section 11 (1A) (a) of the Act. The impugned amount was added to the total income of the assessee. 2.3. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the impugned addition was deleted. The relevant

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

1) of section 54F and the Board Circular No. 667, dated October 18, 1993 ([1993] 204 ITR (St.) 103), clearly stated that the purchase/construction is to be completed within stipulated time is not mandatory for claiming exemption under the Act?" We have heard the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. There

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

1) of section 54F and the Board Circular No. 667, dated October 18, 1993 ([1993] 204 ITR (St.) 103), clearly stated that the purchase/construction is to be completed within stipulated time is not mandatory for claiming exemption under the Act?" We have heard the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. There

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: -

1-10-2004 then the loss from exempt source would be set off against taxable gain, such set off is contrary to law. (iv)In Mridu Hari Dalmia Parivar Trust v. AO [2016] 68 taxmann.com 376 (Delhi-Trib.), it has been held that - "10. A perusal of sub-section (38) reveals that any income arising from the transfer of long

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

section 251(1) (a) of the Act by directing the AO to refer the matter for valuation u/s 55A of the Act without categorically deciding the correctness of either assessee's valuation or valuation worked out by the AO?" 4. In addition to above, the Revenue has raised following additional grounds also. 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances

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

1) was issued calling for various details. 3. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee offered under the head, long term capital gains, a sum of Rs. 41.00 lakhs contending that he had inherited an ancestral house property which was sold during the year under consideration and the resultant long term capital gains were offered from sale of the said house

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore under

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore under

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

251 2,14,15,358 Page No. 343 345 347 348 349 350 Paper book Ruchi Infra March March March March March March 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity 14,38,120 89,900 77,050 2,39,350 4,06,352 7,78,709 Amount 11,33,26,724 2,20,77,169 1

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

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

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. 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. 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

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee.\nDuring the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore under

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

1,05,970/-. ITA/3961/Mum/2014: 2.Effective ground of appeal,filed by the AO,is about directing him to assess the income from sale of shares as capital gains instead of business.During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had declared income under various heads namely income from house property (Rs.6.72 lakhs) profit on sale of shares (speculative transaction

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 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 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

capital asset situate in India. ** ** ** Explanation 4.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression "through" shall mean and include and shall be deemed to have always meant and included ''by means of", "in consequence of" or "by reason of".' 7.1 Section 40 of the Act spells out what amounts are not deductable from the income

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

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