TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

253 and Rs. 198.75P. This last amount\ncomes to a little more than the sum of Rs. 37,630 which the\nappellant claimed should be deducted from Rs. 45,262.50P. in\ncomputing her capital gain. The claim made by the appellant\nwas thus clearly justified because the net capital gain by her\nin the transaction, which consisted

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

section 68 of the Act to tax the full amount recd. On sale of shares as alleged unexplained cash credit as alleged income earned from undisclosed sources where AO has concluded the same in his order, if views of AO is summarized then crux of the same is astronomical long term capital gains earned by assessee defies common sense

LEKHRAJ JASRAJ JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

1,67,45,253/- under the head long- -term capital gain and claimed the same as exempt. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has gain and claimed the same as exempt. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has gain and claimed the same as exempt. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has recorded reasons to believe based on incorrect facts merely on the basis of recorded

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\nParticulars\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\nInterest on Deposits\nAmount (Rs.)\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

253 of 1961 Act) has held that\n'finding' means the finding necessary for giving relief\nin respect of the assessment year in question and the\nproviso to section 34(3) of the 1922 Act does not save time\nprescribed under section 34(1) in respect of escaped\nassessment of any year other than that which has been the\nsubject

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

capital gain cannot be denied to the assesse. (A copy of order is placed on page no. 108 to 121) Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Manishkumar Baid Vs ACIT ITAT Kolkatta it was held that rejecting the assesse claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act is not correct. The tribunal has relied upon the judgment

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\n2\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\n3\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\n2\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\n3\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\n2\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\n3\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

253 30. Decision of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in case of Shri Yogesh P Thakkar and Ors Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 1605 to 1611/Mum/2021 dated 03.02.2023 7. Whereas on the contrary, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 8. After having heard counsels from both the parties at length, we noticed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

gains of eligible business for the first five years and upto 30% for the remaining five years in the ten consecutive assessment years out of the fifteen years starting from the time the enterprise started its operation. The legislature having ousted applicability of sub-section (1) and (2) in the opening sentence brought in for the purposes of time line

A.C..I.T. CIRCLE-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AWADHNARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN SINGH, MUMBAI

capital gains at Rs.\n47,29,87,427/-.Where he is not even authorised to reopen the case\nas reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiry of 15\nyearsfrom the end of the assessment year. reassessment\nproceedings are void and bad in law.\n11. The Section 150 of the Act provides that notwithstanding the limitation\nprescribed under section 149, notice

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

253 (Bom) (which\nwas assessee's own case) and in paragraph number 30 held that\nthis decision in fact was relied upon to support the finding that\nprovisions of section 115JB applies to the banking companies\nlike the assessee, but took the view that the line of reasoning is\n‘per incurriam'.\n8. Since there were contradicting decisions of Tribunal

VIVEK VINOD VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Capital Ltd. (formerly known as Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd.) ITA. No. Asst. Yr Date Income Pecuniary Date- Income AO AO remarks Original declared jurisdiction Return filed declared recording completing return filed as per u/s 148 reasons and assessment A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. CBDT issuing 148 Circular notice

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Capital Ltd. (formerly known as Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd.) ITA. No. Asst. Yr Date Income Pecuniary Date- Income AO AO remarks Original declared jurisdiction Return filed declared recording completing return filed as per u/s 148 reasons and assessment A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. CBDT issuing 148 Circular notice

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Capital Ltd. (formerly known as Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd.) ITA. No. Asst. Yr Date Income Pecuniary Date- Income AO AO remarks Original declared jurisdiction Return filed declared recording completing return filed as per u/s 148 reasons and assessment A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. CBDT issuing 148 Circular notice

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Capital Ltd. (formerly known as Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd.) ITA. No. Asst. Yr Date Income Pecuniary Date- Income AO AO remarks Original declared jurisdiction Return filed declared recording completing return filed as per u/s 148 reasons and assessment A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. CBDT issuing 148 Circular notice