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

271(l)(c) of the Act is initiated separately.” 5.2 On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) on the first issue of taxing entire On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) on the first issue of taxing entire On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) on the first issue of taxing entire capital gain on account of conversion of capital asset being land capital gain

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

271(l)(c) of the Act is initiated separately.” 5.2 On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) on the first issue of taxing entire On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) on the first issue of taxing entire On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) on the first issue of taxing entire capital gain on account of conversion of capital asset being land capital gain

FIDELITY SALEM STREET TRUST FIDELITY SAI EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 70, I find that there is no prohibition nor the Act compels the assessee to first set off short term capital gain with STT against short term capital loss with STT and then allows set off against short term capital gain without STT. In absence of any specific mode of set off provided in the Act and in absence

EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 70, I find that there is no prohibition nor the Act compels the assessee to first set off short term capital gain with STT against short term capital loss with STT and then allows set off against short term capital gain without STT. In absence of any specific mode of set off provided in the Act and in absence

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

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

section 68 of the Act. After considering submission of the assessee considering submission of the assessee, the learned , the learned Assessing Officer concluded as under: Officer concluded as under: 16.6 All the indicators mentioned in Pa 16.6 All the indicators mentioned in Paras above, point to only one ras above, point to only one thing that the shares prices

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS FID EMG MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )2(3)(1), MUMBAI

271,201)\n(223,701,502)\n(9,77,33,796)\n174,64,01,537\n164,86,67,741\n\n5.1.\nThe underlying facts show that the assessee had short\nterm capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital\nloss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains\non non-STT paid shares and short term capital

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS EMERGING MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

271,201)\n(223,701,502)\n(9,77,33,796)\n174,64,01,537\n164,86,67,741\n5. 1. The underlying facts show that the assessee had short\nterm capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital\nloss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains\non non-STT paid shares and short term capital

SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

section 70, I find that there is no prohibition nor the Act compels the assessee to first set off short term capital gain with STT against short term capital loss with STT and then allows set off against short term capital gain without STT. In absence of any specific mode of set off provided in the Act and in absence

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

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

section 147, of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long-term securities\n(Bogus transactions) Assessment year 2006-\n07 Assesse purchased 3000 shares of\ncompany 'T' through a stock broker These\nshares were transferred to assesses demat\naccount - However, said stock broker submitted\nbefore authorities that he was providing\naccommodation entries for taking profit

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 147, of 260 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains IN THE ITAT - Income arising from transfer of long- AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased 3000 Income-tax Officer, Ward- shares of company 'T' through a stock 10 (3), Ahmedabad* broker - These shares were transferred OCTOBER

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

Capital Gains\". As the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed income, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated

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

Capital Gains, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the menaing of section 271(1)(c). Hence, penalty

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

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

section 10[38] of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\n3.4 On perusal of the above-mentioned documents it is evident that the purchase transactions have taken place through banking channels and that the shares sold were subjected to securities transaction tax and have been sold through a recognized stock exchange, leaving no scope for share price manipulation

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section