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

2) is reproduced as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capita! asset into, or its treatment by him as stock way of conversion

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

2) is reproduced as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capita! asset into, or its treatment by him as stock way of conversion

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

2) is reproduced as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capita! asset into, or its treatment by him as stock way of conversion

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

2) is reproduced as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capita! asset into, or its treatment by him as stock way of conversion

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

capital gains. Applying this measure, the resultant gain under section 112A works out to ₹2,94,53,256, as against

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

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

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

256 [bom] where it was held that where DMAT account and contract note showed details of share transaction and the Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital Gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section 68.\n\n3.34 Attention is invited to the decision of CIT vs. Vivek Mehta 204 Taxman

FIDELITY ASIAN VALUES PLC, GURGAON GURGAON vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, (INTL TAXT), CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2,71,89,981 under section 115AD of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') Short-term Capital Loss chargeable to tax @ 15% (7,98,88,453) under section 111A of the Act (5,26,98,472) Net Short-term Capital Gain/ (Loss) carried (5,26,98,472) forward Total Loss available for carry forward (Short (9,48,21,256

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

capital gain earned by the appellant is bogus except the attribution by the investigation Wing and Sebi. Accordingly, the ITAT held that the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10 (38) of the act needs to be allowed. 8.4 with reference to the script of Surabhi chemicals and investments Ltd, even ITAT Kolkata in case of the other

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

capital gain earned by the appellant is bogus except the attribution by the investigation Wing and Sebi. Accordingly, the ITAT held that the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10 (38) of the act needs to be allowed. A Y : 2014–15 Income Tax Officer Versus Seema Narendra Bapna 8.4 with reference to the script of soon

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

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) (vii) of the Act, where the assessee is eligible for deduction to the extent of only ₹542,07,79,550/- but in the assessment order same

SABEENA SILK MILLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

256 (Mad)], wherein it was held that when certain assets forming part of block assets, other than immovable property, are sold in the ordinary course of business before being held during the relevant previous year, the resulting loss—if the sale price is less than the written-down value— should be treated as a business loss under Section 41(2

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)

256 28. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Jamna Devi Agarwal (328 ITR 656) 29. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Ziauddin A Siddique [Income-tax Appeal No. 2012 of 2017, dated 4-3-2022] 30. Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

Gains of\nBusiness or Profession\".\n7. Thus, from perusal of section 37(1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid\nprovision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does\nnot contain a requirement that there has to be a pay out. If an expenditure\nhas been incurred, provision of section

CHITRA AVDHESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

2) SCC 453.\n9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred\nin holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers\nof the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to\nthe findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account\nstatement of the Respondent was called for from the broker\nM/s_SMC_Global

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

2) SCC 453.\n9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred\nin holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers\nof the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to\nthe findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account\nstatement of the Respondent was called for from the broker\nM/s_SMC_Global