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

1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 250 to 256. 7. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issues in dispute and perused the relevant materials on record. In ground

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

1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 250 to 256. 7. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issues in dispute and perused the relevant materials on record. In ground

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

1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 250 to 256. 7. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issues in dispute and perused the relevant materials on record. In ground

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

1 to 249 and also a supplementary paper book containing pages 250 to 256. 7. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issues in dispute and perused the relevant materials on record. In ground

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

256/- without examining the fact of application of cost inflation index on foreign currency in computation of capital gain. viii. Excess allowances of deduction of ₹250,03,69,520/- under Section 36 (1

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1)] 4 Number of shares sold 20,71,963 5 Aggregate capital gains before expenses 7,79,97,968 6 Selling expenses 4,85,13,156 7 Capital gain chargeable under Section 2,94,53,256

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 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

gain. The Assessing Officer did his formality of did his formality of informing the reasons to the assessee , on which the case was informing the reasons to the assessee , on which the case was informing the reasons to the assessee , on which the case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter he selected for scrutiny and thereafter he simply placed

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

1] was issued on the Appellant, in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the appellant had furnish the complete details and evidence including contract note for purchase and sale of shares, demat account, Bank statement, Broker Ledger etc. in respect of Long Term Capital Gain which has been claimed exempt under section 10[38] of Income

ITO-28.3.1, NAVI MUMBAI vs. SEEMA NARENDRA BAPNA, NERUL

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

1,182,617/– as per paragraph number 7 – 8 of the appellate order. 10. The learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and has raised grounds in this appeal. 11. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer stating that. a. Assessee has earned abnormally huge capital gain on sale of shares

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

1 against the reopening of the assessment is not pressed and therefore same is dismissed. 4. This leaves us with the only aspect in this appeal with respect to the addition made under section 68 of the income tax act and denial of claim of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act. 5. Brief facts of the case shows

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

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee would\nbe eligible to get a deduction u/s.80IA.\n40.\nNow coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between the\nbusiness of housing finance and other income and the basis for the segregation

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

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

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

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

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

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

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

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

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

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

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation