ITO 25(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. SUDHA B. DAMANI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma , Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain , Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6952/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Ito -25(2)(3) , Mumbai Smt. Sudha Brijratan Damani Room No. 105, 1St Floor, A-73, Shridhar Smruti, Devidas बनाम/ Bldg. No. C-11, Pratyakshakar Extension Road, Borivali (West) Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 103. Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapd 5203 G. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

capital gain and not as business income.” b. “On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that though the total transactions during the year is low, the volume of transactions is very high and the shares are bought and sold regularly within short period with

JT. CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VENUS INTERNATIONAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Gains (LTCG)/Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) through penny stocks from monetary limits Specified in any Circular issued under Section 268A

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

section 14A is that expenditure incurred in relation to income, which does not form part of total income under the Act, shall not be allowed as deduction. This clearly implies that assessee should have earned some income during the relevant previous year, which does not form part of the total income under the provisions of the Act and some expenditure

ACIT, CC-44, MUMBAI vs. SHILPA SUNIL MAJITHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

268A of the Act read with the extant circular dated 10.12.2015. The ld. AR would next contend that though the issue on merits has been decided for each of the three surviving appeals, i.e., for A.Ys. 2001-02 and 2003-04 (supra), by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central-II, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) in the favour

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

268A of the Act embodies a clear and deliberate policy decision to regulate departmental litigation and to ensure that appeals involving insignificant tax effect do not occupy the time of appellate fora. Such Circulars are binding on the Revenue authorities and, once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Tribunal is obliged to give effect to the same. 4. Once

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

268A of the Act embodies a clear and deliberate policy decision to regulate departmental litigation and to ensure that appeals involving insignificant tax effect do not occupy the time of appellate fora. Such Circulars are binding on the Revenue authorities and, once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Tribunal is obliged to give effect to the same. 4. Once

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

268A of the Act embodies a clear and deliberate policy decision to regulate departmental litigation and to ensure that appeals involving insignificant tax effect do not occupy the time of appellate fora. Such Circulars are binding on the Revenue authorities and, once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Tribunal is obliged to give effect to the same. 4. Once

HINDUJA VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 302/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hinduja Ventures Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 8(2), बनाम/ 49/50, In Centre, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, 12Th Road, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach 2058 N (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. Cit, Circle 8(2), Hinduja Ventures Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 49/50, In Centre, Midc, 12Th Road, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 093 (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri Hari S. Raheja : Mrs. Neelma Nadkarni Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 08.09.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 29.11.2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S

capital gain arising thereon would not be tax-exempt u/ss. 10(34) or 10(38) of the Act. Reference for the purpose was made by him to the assessee’s computation appearing at page 6 of the paper-book (PB). Further, the disallowance of interest has been made by the assessee u/s.14A r/w rule 8D(2)(i) by relating each