SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) is not competent person to pass the penalty order u/s. 271B and impugned order levying penalty u/s. 271B dated 10.5.2013 in the present case has been passed by learned CIT(A). Therefore the order of learned CIT(A) is in gross

MAMTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

capital gains arising there from on which the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act was denied. The findings of the Assessing Officer were confirmed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court. 13. We find that in the instant case the Assessing Officer has not carried out his independent investigation

MAMTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

capital gains arising there from on which the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act was denied. The findings of the Assessing Officer were confirmed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court. 13. We find that in the instant case the Assessing Officer has not carried out his independent investigation

SUBHASH BHASKAR UTTURKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhsubhash Bhaskar Utturkar, 14-B, Mehta Apartments, Prof. Agashe Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400 025 Pan: Aaapu 1559G ..... Appellant Vs. The Ito 18(2)(2). Mumbai. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok Shah Respondent By : Shri A.K.Kardam

271B of the Act of Rs.1.00 lac for the failure to get the accounts audited in terms of section 44AB of the Act. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual, who field his return of income on 28/05/2008 declaring an income of Rs.72,860/-. The return of income filed by the assessee, inter-alia

SUBHASH BHASKAR UTTURKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 1364/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Subhash Bhaskar Utturkar, Income Tax Officer 18(2)(2) बिाम/ 14-B, Mehta Apartments, Mumbai. Prof. Agashe Marg, Dadar, Vs. Mumbai 400 025. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaapu1559G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Ashok D. Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri K.C. Kanojia

Capital Gains’ but after considering the nature of transactions carried out by assessee, AO treated the same to be taxable under the head ‘Business Income’. Consequently as turnover of the assessee exceeded the limit specified in Section 44AB of the act and since the assessee failed to get the accounts audited, an amount of Rs. 1.00 Lacs was imposed

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gains', which is not relevant for the\npresent case. On examining the aforesaid provisions, as referred in section 80\nITA No.2458/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n19\nof the Act, prima facie, these sections do not cover or deal with procedure of\nsetting off of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance.\n10. Section 32 of the Act deals with different types

SANTOSH GHANSHYAMDAS BIYANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.6008/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ Mr. Santosh Ghanshyam Ito-4(2)(2) Biyani Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 103-B, Hare Krishna, Firoz Road, Mumbai. Shah Mehta Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaipb5664K (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Vishwas V. Mehendale Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar(Sr. Ar)

capital gain in the returned of income. The assessee was found engaged in the sale of share on different companies on non-delivery basis in sum of Rs.2.06 crores. The profit arisen from the transaction was in sum of Rs.31,090/- which was claimed as business income. 4. Since, the assessee’s turnover of the Sale of Shares claimed

TEJRAJ DALICHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Tejraj Dalichand Jain National Faceless Flat No. 14, Nakshtra, Assessment Centre Vs. Chandavarkar Road, Ito 25(2)(2) Borivali (West)- 400092. Bkc, Mumbai. Pan: Aabpj3476C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“Act” In Short) Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059124020(1) Dated 28.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised: “The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To, One Another-

gains from business and profession" by virtue of deeming provisions of section 28(v) of the Act and hence, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the impugned penalty. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated ground of appeal.” 3. There is only one ground

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

gains of the assessee has not been computed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the profit/loss has to be computed as per Rule 10(i) of the Income-tax Rules in which the global profitability can only be taken as one of the factors. 3.5.3 The assessee submits that all its activities have been carried out outside

MAMTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains of Rs.1,11,39,648/- and has claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. The AO has dealt exhaustively on the facts in respect of the transactions and the assessee has filed the explanations to show cause notice on 20.12.2012 referred at Para 7.2 of the assessment order, whereas ITA No. 1237/Mum/2022 & 1861/Mum/2021 Mamta Sundeep Mehta, Mumbai

VAIBHAV BHARGAVA,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

capital gains on sale of securities. For the year under consideration, the assessee missed filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act and as per the information received from the INSIGHT portal, the AO formed a I.T.A. No. 2540/Mum/2025 2 belief that the assessee has not disclosed certain transactions and hence has not filed his return of income

NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a license) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JANI PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Rifaur Rahman (Am) Jani Properties Pvt Ltd Vs Ito, 2(2)(1), Gkdj & Associates, Cas Aayakar Bhavan, 333, Sohrab Hall, 21, Sassoon M.K. Road, Road, Opp Jehangir Hospital, Mumbai -400020 Pune-411 001 Pan : Aaacj7356D Appellant Respondednt

Capital Gain. 3 Jani Properties Pvt Ltd 1.3 Our Client has paid Advance Tax for which you have not given us Credit Details are given below (challan attached Annexure B) UTI Bank 23/8/2007 Rs 1696000/- Challan Sr No 71088 1.4 Our client has also paid Tax on distribution profits u/s 115- 0/115P with delayed interest, Details are given below (challan

NAGASE & CO.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2005-06)

capital assets situated in India, shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The mandate contained in clause(a) of the Explanation is that for the purpose of the afore -mentioned clause, where the business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise

DDIT (IT) 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NAGASE & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2005-06)

capital assets situated in India, shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The mandate contained in clause(a) of the Explanation is that for the purpose of the afore -mentioned clause, where the business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise

MR. SANJAY MAROTRAO MODAK,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIR 29(3) NFAC, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Sanjay Marotrao Modak Dy. Cit, Circle 29(3), Nfac F-503, Redwoods, Near Swap, Vasant Mumbai Gardens, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 080

capital 3 Shri Sanjay Marotrao Modak vs. Dy. CIT gain’ for computing tax. The assessee in this case has treated the same as ‘business loss’ and not ‘STCL’, pertaining to the transaction in future and option. The ld. AR relied on ICAI guidelines in calculating the turnover from future and option and as per the said guideline, the assessee