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

NELCO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 15(2)(1) Nelco Limited Room No.357, 2Nd Floor, El-6, Electronic Zone, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1983C

gain u/s 50 B of the act. Same reasoning also applies to all these items of adjustment claimed by the assessee. 033. The ld CIT (A) has deal with this issue as under :- “5.4 Ground No. 3 to 6 Reduction of Sundry Creditors of Rs.1,30,41,920/-, Other Liabilities of Rs.1,94,17,656/-, Gratuity and Leave Encashment

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

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

section 69C of the Act ought to have been deleted.\n\n5. The Appellant trust the above submissions sufficiently clarify the facts and the Appellant's claims, contentions and grounds of appeal and request your Honour to consider the same at the time of deciding the appeal. However, in case your Honour desires any further information/clarification

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

capital Braj Kishore Singh gain (LTCG) of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 17,04,264/- for the AY 2015-16. 2. The brief facts as culled out from the order of lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual having residential status as non-resident during the FY 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year under consideration

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

Capital gains" at the time of sale of securities. 3.5 The reversal of provision made for securities held as stock in trade has been offered by the Bank and the book loss in respect of securities held as stock in trade has been claimed. The provision on securities held as investments of Rs. 207,46,57,341 has been disallowed

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

264 | 9,42,223 |\n| 5 | IFSL | AABCI468 5 H | ITA 1109/MU M/2020 | 2012 -13 | 17,64,580 | 50,73,106 | 33,08,526 | 10,22,335 |\n| 6 | MANISH AJMERA | AABPA789 8P | ITA 986/MUM / 2020 | 2012 -13 | 27,00,610 | 58,58,110 | 31,57,500 | 9,75,668 |\n| 7 | JITEN AJMERA | AABPA782 9A | ITA 1143/MU M/2020

MINAL M AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

264 | 9,42,223 |\n| 5 | IFSL | AABCI468 5 H | ITA 1109/MU M/2020 | 2012 -13 | 17,64,580 | 50,73,106 | 33,08,526 | 10,22,335 |\n| 6 | MANISH AJMERA | AABPA789 8P | ITA 986/MUM / 2020 | 2012 -13 | 27,00,610 | 58,58,110 | 31,57,500 | 9,75,668 |\n| 7 | JITEN AJMERA | AABPA782 9A | ITA 1143/MU M/2020

AJMERA PHARMASURE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

264 | 9,42,223\n5 | IFSL | AABCI468 5 H | ITA 1109/MU M/2020 | 2012 -13 | 17,64,580 | 50,73,106 | 33,08,526 | 10,22,335\n6 | MANISH AJMERA | AABPA789 8P | ITA 986/MUM / 2020 | 2012 -13 | 27,00,610 | 58,58,110 | 31,57,500 | 9,75,668\n7 | JITEN AJMERA | AABPA782 9A | ITA 1143/MU M/2020

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

section 50 of the Act as against rate as applicable to Short term capital gains. This alternate plea had been taken by the appellant in case the ground taken above with respect to adjusting the capital gain with brought forward business losses is not allowed. The assessee relied upon the decision of hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

SHEETAL RUPESH SALVA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-20(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

gain shown by the assessee from sale of shares of M/s KLL and M/s AGSSL was from transaction of penny scrip which were used for providing accommodation entries to beneficiaries like assessee in the form of bogus capital gain/losses. Thereafter, the AO discussed about the investigation report of the wing which spelled out the modus operandi of unscrupulous entry providers

SHEETAL RUPESH SALVA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-20(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

gain shown by the assessee were from sale of penny scrip. According to AO, shares of M/s AGSSL was classified as penny scrip which were used for providing 3 A.Y. 2012-13 Sheetal Rupesh Savla accommodation entries to beneficiaries like assessee in the form of bogus capital gain/losses. Thereafter, the AO discussed about the investigation report of the wing which

SHEETAL RUPESH SALVA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-20(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

gain shown by the assessee were from sale of penny scrips. According to AO, shares of M/s KGN and M/s AGSSL was classified as penny scrips which were used for providing accommodation entries to beneficiaries like assessee in the form of bogus capital gain/losses. Thereafter, the AO discussed about the investigation report of the wing which spelled out the modus

VIRENDRA BHAVANJI GALA,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

264-279 of the paper book. 8. After the completion of the assessment of Section 143(3) in the aforesaid manner and the issuance of notice u/s.148A and dropping of such proceedings, the ld. PCIT in his revisionary jurisdiction issued a notice u/s. 263 on 02/03/2023, again on the same issue of taxability of receipt of compensation of Rs.7

L & T TECHNOLOGIES SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

capital gains in the case of slump sale. Therefore, neither the transaction is in the nature of demerger nor have the parties treated it to be so. 14.2. We note that the Ld. AO referred to Explanation 3 section 43(1) of the Act, alleging the main purpose of transfer as the reduction of liability to income tax by claiming

POONAM DHANANJAY SANDU,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

capital gains by adopting 'Nil' as the cost of acquisition in respect of the property transferred. The property in question was acquired by the Appellant through gift and inheritance, which falls under the scope of Section 49(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The Appellant, in accordance with Section 55(2)(b)(ii), has opted to adopt the Fair

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Rajasthan Petro Synthetics

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Rajasthan Petro Synthetics

DCIT - CC-6(4), MUMBAI vs. INDIABULLS REAL ESTATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 48 of the Income Tax Act, the capital gain is to be computed having regard to the full value of consideration accruing to the assessee at the time of transfer of shares. Undisputedly, the consideration accruing at the time of transfer was Rs.10 crores which was thereafter reduced only to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs. A mere post facto