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) :

section. 251 to make such observations while giving finding of fact placed on record. Whether in the hands of the P a g e | 50 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 transferor company, it would be subject to capital gains tax or not will only be decided on the facts and merits

CHANDARANI N.GOYAL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

251(2) of the Act. In the next ground, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.25 lakh made by the learned CIT(A) under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record

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

2), it states that the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of the relevant date. Further, by way of sub section (4) of section 249, no appeal shall be admitted unless prescribed conditions are fulfilled. Sub section (3) of 249 provides for admitting the appeal even if the appeal is filed after the prescribed limitation, if assessee

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

2), it states that the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of the relevant date. Further, by way of sub section (4) of section 249, no appeal shall be admitted unless prescribed conditions are fulfilled. Sub section (3) of 249 provides for admitting the appeal even if the appeal is filed after the prescribed limitation, if assessee

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:

2. Assessee aggrieved with that appellate order is in appeal before us raising following grounds:- i. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT – A faceless Centre has erred in unilateral assessing the long-term capital gain from sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,432,755/– as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the income

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

2),\nMumbai - 400051\nRespondent\nAssessee by : Shri Sunil M Lala\nShri A.N. Shah\nRevenue by : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing – 24/07/2025\nDate of Order – 28/08/2025\nO R D E R\nPER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.\nThe assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order\ndated 18.11.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income

JM FINANCIAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2 members designated by the Assessee while MS would have three. (Pg. 30 - 31 PB1); 3. The Company would have its own team of management including its own CEO who would be appointed by the board of the Company where the Assessee had only 40% representation. (Pg. 53 - 54 PB1). There would be a separate executive committee for the management

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. J.M. FINANCIAL LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2 members designated by the Assessee while MS would have three. (Pg. 30 - 31 PB1); 3. The Company would have its own team of management including its own CEO who would be appointed by the board of the Company where the Assessee had only 40% representation. (Pg. 53 - 54 PB1). There would be a separate executive committee for the management

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 48 of the Act, only the following 2 deductions are allowed: (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer, and (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto. No other expenditure can be allowed. Most importantly, there is no scope for allowing interest expenses under either of the above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

2) of the Act is to be made without resorting to the\ncomputation as contemplated under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D\nof the Rules. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Special\nBench of the Tribunal, we direct the AO to compute the book profit under\nsection 115-JB of the Act, without resorting