RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

capital gain amount was deposited by the assessee before the due date of furnishing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of section 54(2) of the Act and thus, the action taken in the 4 Ravi Kant HUF assessment order was affirmed. The assessee is aggrieved

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

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

capital gain as non-genuine.\n\n3.21 The genuineness of the transaction has been clearly proved by the appellant beyond doubt by submitting the following documents; -\n\ni. Contract notes issued by the broker which are system generated and which clearly mentions the following details-\n\na] Details of the broker\nb] DP ID\nc] Client ID\nd] Contract number

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

gain tax is provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 6 Amirali Akbarali Engineer 54EB, 54F and 54H as is apparent from section 45 itself. A perusal of the provisions of sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB and 54F clearly reveals that the Legislature has used the words ‘a’ and ‘any’ with reference to investment of capital gain/sale

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 gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

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)

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified- Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

capital gain on sale of shares. The assessee has challenged both legality of reopening of assessment and as well as the addition on merit. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) confirmed both on merit as well as the legality of assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act and the consequent additions. 5 Ajay J. Doshi

ANJU CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when 17 Anju Chirania, Mumbai

AHMED P. SURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Section 260A" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of exemption for long-term capital gains and the addition made under Section 68 were

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

260A. Where the High Court dismissed the Department's appeal saying that no question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing relief to the assessee, and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that there was no adverse comment from the stock exchange or the company whose shares

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gain and not under the business head. Accordingly, the ground of the assessee is allowed.” 4. We also find that the CIT(A) has retreated the same position as the AO while giving appeal effect to the ITAT, only noted that the issue has been appealed by department before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under section 260A

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gain and not under the business head. Accordingly, the ground of the assessee is allowed.” 4. We also find that the CIT(A) has retreated the same position as the AO while giving appeal effect to the ITAT, only noted that the issue has been appealed by department before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under section 260A

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gain and not under the business head. Accordingly, the ground of the assessee is allowed.” 4. We also find that the CIT(A) has retreated the same position as the AO while giving appeal effect to the ITAT, only noted that the issue has been appealed by department before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under section 260A

KETAN HARILAL MEHTA HUF BY ITS KARTA KETAN H MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-33(2)(2) MUMBAI PRESENTLY JURIDICTION WITH ITO 42(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

AMIT SAJJAN KUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified- Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

M/S. ISMAIL ABDULKARIM BALWA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT RG 24(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Ismail Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7570M (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Hussein Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7572K (Appellant)

260A of the Act. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 29.1.2013 has set-aside the order of the Tribunal dated 6.7.2012 including the Third Member’s order dated 11.6.2012 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration by observing as under :- “In these appeals by the assessee various questions have been formulated. However, the basic controversy

JT. CIT (OSD) CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. SUJAN AZAD PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–49, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing

SANJAY MADANRAJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 32(3) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Ssanjay Madanrajshah, Acit – 32(3) 316, New Link Way Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate, Near Chincholi Bkc Complex, Vs. Fire Brigade, Bandra (E), Malad (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajcps1858H (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

RAKESH SHANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-18(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gains. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the persons investigated , including entry operators or stock brokers, have named that the assessee was in collusion with them. In absence of such finding how is it possible to link their wrong doings with the assessee. In fact the investigation wing is a separate department which has not been