DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 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 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

1,89,97,538/- ignoring the fact that the assessee could not explain the difference in the said capital account balance as shown by the assessee and that of the firm M/s Pregnancy Advices and Services, wherein assessee was a partner". (iii) The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the ground

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

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of person or body of individuals(not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise , shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm, association or body , of the previous year

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of person or body of individuals(not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise , shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm, association or body , of the previous year

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

253 of the Income Tax Act are directed against the consolidated order of ld. CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 02.11.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of assessee for AY2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 by a consolidated order, the assessee has raised some common

ASHOK JASRAJ JAIN, HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

section 143(3) of the Act dated 28/12/2017, the dated 28/12/2017, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee of long rejected the claim of the assessee of long rejected the claim of the assessee of long-term capital gain of ₹1,67, 67,45,253

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

JAYATI S. CHAKRABORTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjayati S Chakraborty Acit - 31(2) 1803/1804, B-Wing, Oberoi C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Woods, Mohan Gokhale Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400063. Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaopc5980B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Aarati Visanji With Sh. Salin R. Divatia-(Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr)

253 of Income-tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-42, Mumbai dated 23.08.2016 which in turn arises from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 10.03.2015 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT (Appeals)-42 erred

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

gains' arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The term 'slump sale' has been defined in Section 2(42C) of the Act as the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale for a lump

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

MADHU SARDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

253 of Income-tax Act is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-35 Mumbai dated 4th September 2012, which in turn arises from assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 26 December 2008 for assessment year 2006-07. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; (1) The Hon’ble Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming

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

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

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