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

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains on sale of investments. During the financial\nyear 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year under\nconsideration, the assessee had claimed bad debts aggregating to\nRs. 1.18 crores. The said amount comprised a loan of Rs. 1.13\ncrores given to M/s Karnavati Securities Pvt. Ltd. and an advance\nof Rs. 5 lakhs paid towards purchase of a flat

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

253 (Bombay).\n8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in cross-objection submitting that\neven otherwise on merit also penalty is not leviable in the case of\nthe assessee.\n9. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the\nrelevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the\nassessee referred to the Paper Book which is running from

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

C Appellant Respondent : Mr. Suchek Anchaliay & Assessee by Ms. Vanshika Agarwal : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 30/09/2025 : 12/11/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n7\nITA Nos.7532/MUM/2004 & others\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nAYs 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001-02\nCorporate Deposits\n1,301,388,075\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\n2,761,916\nIDBI Deposits\n92,632,663\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\n774,655,522\nGovernment Securities\n127

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

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

capital gains at Rs.47,29,87,427/-. Where he is\nnot even authorised to reopen the case as reassessment\nproceedings were initiated after the expiry of 15 yearsfrom\nthe end of the assessment year. reassessment proceedings are\nvoid and bad in law.\n11. Thus based on above the Ld. AO reopened the case for AY 2003-04\nas per provision

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

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (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

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n2\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills\nLease Rentals\nDividend Income\nProfit on Sale of Investment\nProfit on redemption of Debentures/Govt.\nSecurities\nProfit on sale of Debentures/\nSecurities

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n2\n3\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills\nLease Rentals\nDividend Income\nProfit on Sale of Investment\nProfit on redemption of Debentures/Govt.\nSecurities\nProfit on sale of Debentures/Govt

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\n1,301,388,075\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\n2,761,916\nIDBI Deposits\n92,632,663\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\n774,655,522\nGovernment Securities\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\n1,225,179\nDiscount

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

c) Sale bill cum contract note for sale of shares. d) delivery of Copy of demat bank statement in support of purchase and receipt of shares and for sale issue of delivery of shares. e) Share application form for preferential allotment. 10 ITA.No.4114&4115/Mum/2023 Nitesh Rajhans Singh., Mumbai f) Copy of cheque issued for preferential allotment. g) Copy

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

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

CHETAK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Capital Gain arising out of transfer of such TDR/FSI?" 6. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act, without considering fact that section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-op Housing Society Act, defines that the society