THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

SUKHPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia (International Tax) Ward 6/24, Milan Building, 1(1)(1), 87, Tardeo Road, Room No.1817A, 18 Th Vs. Opp. Tardeo A C Market, Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 034 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azupa6884D Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2024 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

255,51,198/- for A.Y. 2014-15 totaling to ₹2,87,50,358/-. Assessee disclosed this transaction in schedule BFLA as long- term gain chargeable to tax u/s 112 of the Act. Computation of capital gain on sale of shares of st . Patrick’s Reality limited was made as under:- Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia; A.Y. 2019-20 No of Purchased Cost

EMERGING MARKETS INDEX NON LENDABLE FUND,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm A.Y.2021 – 22 Emerging Markets Index The Deputy Commissioner Of Non-Lendable Fund Income Tax (International C/O Ernst & Young Llp Taxation) – Circle –2 (2) (1) 17Th Floor 1722, 17T H Floor, Vs. The Ruby Air India Building, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg Nariman Point, Dadar (West) Mumbai – 21 Mumbai – 28 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaaae3262D Assessee By Shri Anish Thacker & Pranay Gandhi Revenue By Shri Anil Sant Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 7 May 2024 Date Of Pronouncement 5 August 2024

255) which is subject to securities transaction tax 3 Net short-term capital loss which is (1,45,58,650) subject to security transaction tax 4 And short-term capital gains 5,20,75,459 (subject to security transaction tax and taxable as per section

M/S AMRITLAL BHABUTMAL HUF,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Amritlal Bhabutmal Huf, National E-Assessment Centre, 601, Earth Baug, Princess Street, Delhi, Ito Ward 23(1)(6), Vs. 116, Shamaldas Gandhi Marg, Room No. 615, Piramal Kalbadevi, Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaeha 4248 N Appellant Respondent

capital gain, income computed of Rs.25,80,098/ of Rs.25,80,098/- under section 44AD by under section 44AD by the assessee. We have perused the profit and loss account of the . We have perused the profit and loss account of the . We have perused the profit and loss account of the assessee available on Paper Book page 4

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

255 ITR 573 (Kerala). M/s Jaymala Infrastructure P. Ltd. M/s Jaymala Infrastructure P. Ltd. 4 (iv) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the ca (iv) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Indus Valley se of Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Promoters Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the cross appeal filed by the revenue as well as\nassessee stands dismissed

4)\nRoom No. 1927,\n19th Floor,\nAir India Building,\nNariman Point,\nMumbai- 400021.\nL and T House,\nNarottam Morarji Marg,\nBallard Estate,\nMumbai- 400001.\nPAN: AAACL0140P\nVs.\nAppellant\nRespondent\nPresent for:\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nShri Nitesh Joshi\nDr. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)\nDate of Hearing\n26.09.2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n20.12.2024\nORDER\nPer Bench:\nPresent cross appeals filed

SHALINI ANAND MURTHY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

capital gain account, then this limit cannot be extended at the whim of the appellant. It has to be strictly at the whim of the appellant. It has to be strictly followed.” (vi) The Ld.CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble further relied on the decision

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

section 47(iii) and 47(iv) of the Income –tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] b) in the absence of consideration, the computation mechanism fails rendering the transaction non-taxable even in the transferor‟s hands and that there is no provision in the Act for substituting the P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

section 47(iii) and 47(iv) of the Income –tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] b) in the absence of consideration, the computation mechanism fails rendering the transaction non-taxable even in the transferor‟s hands and that there is no provision in the Act for substituting the P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018

AVANI J AJMERA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

JASMIN K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

ALPESH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

MANISH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

JITEN K. AJMERA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE KISHORE H. AJMERA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

REENA A AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same." 7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17. "Ans: I agree with the modus

ASHISH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13.04.2013 and I also confirm that I have perused the contents of the same.\"\n7.14 In question no. 17, very detailed and elaborate modus operandi adopted by Shri Shirish Shah was confronted to Jasmine Ajmera, who replied as below for the question no. 17.\n\"Ans: I agree with