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

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

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 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 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, vide assessment order dated 23.12.2016, the assessee filed first appeal which stood dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) vide appellate order dated 23.06.2017 ,by holding as under:- ― I have considered the facts of the case and submission made by the assessee. The AO has made

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

4. erred in initiating revisionary assessment proceedings, even after acknowledging the fact that, the 'without prejudice material' was filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the AO has the passed the Order after examining the same, 5. erred in passing order under section 263 of the Act and directing the Assessing Officer for conducting fresh enquiry

NETESOFT INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

255/- arising on sale of property. 2.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in the business of software development was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) on 09/02/2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.162.39 Lacs after certain adjustments as against returned income of Rs.34.72

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

ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 40, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

capital assets, on a dissolution of the firm or otherwise in the facts of this case. What is to be noted is that even in a situation where sub-section (4) of section 45 applies, profits or gains arising from the transfer are chargeable to tax as income of the firm. It was observed that during the subsistence

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

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

255 crores. 5.30. It is further noted that the assessing officer has not made any verification from the Kocchars as to whether there was any intention for making higher payment for non-compete and whether it was quantified. 5.31. The appellant has also argued that as per sub-clause (a) of section 28(va) (which deals with “not carrying

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Capital Gain, under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee explained that the assessee is a share holder of the company M/s Rajdeep Realtors Pvt. Ltd., purchased shares, which were sold for a consideration of Rs.3,82,00,000/- and after claiming indexation of the cost

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

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

4 cannot be brought to tax under section 115JB, Mr. Kaushal submitted that the first and foremost condition for taxing an income is that such a receipt should be first held as an income under the charging sections and if it is not an income then same cannot be brought to tax under the MAT provision also. The waiver/remission

ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

4 cannot be brought to tax under section 115JB, Mr. Kaushal submitted that the first and foremost condition for taxing an income is that such a receipt should be first held as an income under the charging sections and if it is not an income then same cannot be brought to tax under the MAT provision also. The waiver/remission

PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu Vice Presedent,(As) Shri D. Karunakar Rao & Shri Amit Shukla, Sh. Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarperfect Thread Mills Ltd Vs Dcit, 8(2), Mumbai 201, Millenium Plaza Behind Sakinaka Telephone Exchange, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72 Pan: Aaacp6449E Appellant Respondednt

SECTION 255(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 This appeal was initially heard on 29-07-2015. The Hon’ble Members, who constituted the bench, have passed the following dissenting orders:- PER P. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 1.7.2013 is against the order of the CIT(A)- 17, Mumbai dated 29.4.2013 for the assessment

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

ANANT B. TAWADE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6362/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Anand B. Tawade, Ito – 17(3)(1), बनाम/ 106, Roop Rayon Mill Piramal Chambers, V. Compound, Lalbaug, Near Datt Mandir, Mumbai. Jijamata Nagar, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400 033. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Acdpt 9937A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 2(47) of the Act giving rise to capital gain exigible to tax. The AO relied upon following judgments :- 1. CIT v. Tribhuvandas G Patel (1978) 115 ITR 95(Bom.) 2. CIT v. H R Aslot (1978) 115 ITR 255(Bom.) 3. N A Mody v. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 420(Bom.) 4

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

4 Subsequently, vide order dated 10 March 2011 giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-(Appeals) ['CIT(A)] for AY 2003-04, interest under section 244A of the Act has been recomputed at Rs.1,29,50,156/-. 5. A notice dated 26 March, 2012 was issued to the appellant, under section