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

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

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

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

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

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

2) of the\nIncome Tax Act 1922, (corresponding to the provisions of\nsections 148, 153 and 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

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

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 reasons to believe

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION)- 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility

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

In the result, appeal filed by the\nRevenue is dismissed

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

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

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) 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