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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ DHANJI GOSHAR, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

253 (P&H) in Para 4 & 5 of its order and the PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Hitesh Gandhi in ITA NO. 18 of 2017 dated 16.02.2017 (P&H) in Para 5 & 6 of its order had rendered the similar decisions in favour of the assessee on identical facts and circumstances. 5.22. We find that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ DHANJI GOSHAR, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

253 (P&H)\nin Para 4 & 5 of its order and the PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Hitesh Gandhi\nin ITA NO. 18 of 2017 dated 16.02.2017 (P&H) in Para 5 & 6 of its order had\nrendered the similar decisions in favour of the assessee on identical facts\nand circumstances.\n5.22. We find that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court

MR PANKAJ GOSHAR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

253 (P&H)\nin Para 4 & 5 of its order and the PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Hitesh Gandhi\nin ITA NO. 18 of 2017 dated 16.02.2017 (P&H) in Para 5 & 6 of its order had\nrendered the similar decisions in favour of the assessee on identical facts\nand circumstances.\n5.22. We find that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court

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

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

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 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

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

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

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 CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIRAL SARAF MITTAL , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The facts are identical in the present case. Page No. 14 Viral Saraf Mittal 8.1 in yet another case of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Pr.CIF v. Prem Pal Gandhi [2018] 94 taxmann.com 156/401 ITR 253 wherein it was held that "Though

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

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

5 sons, had inherited\na land on death of their father Shri Laxmi Singh Udit Singh in the\nyear 1986.\n2. The assessee's mother and sisters relinquished their respective\nrights in favour of the sons and their brothers.\n3. Thus, each brother inherited 1/5th share in the land, assesse\nbeing one of them.\n4. On 09.10.2002 the assesse along

EBAY SINGAPORE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai (AO) dated 25 July 2022 ('final assessment order') in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel I ('DRP'). Mumbai dated 21 June 2022 ('DRP directions') on the following grounds which are independent