ACIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 263 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. We note that the Tribunal had, after examining the terms of the Development Agreement, returned factual finding that the Assessee did not enter into a joint venture with the Developer for construction and sale of the constructed area and that the relationship between the Assessee and the Developer

JCIT (OSD),CIRCLE-17(1), MUMBAI vs. NAFISA ASGAR MUN, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

section 54 of the Act by thrashing the facts in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Tribunal by returning following findings: “6.2 In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contested that "Assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain

JAY HANSRAJ CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Prabhash Shankar, Am Mr. Jay Hansraj Chheda Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(1) Room No. 61, 4Th Floor, Vasant Villa, Matru Mandir, Room No. 221, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Ajlpc9910H (Assessee) (Respondent) : Income Tax Officer Jay Hansraj Chheda Room No. 61, 4Th Floor, Vasant Room No. 502, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Vs. Villa, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Ajlpc9910H (Assessee) : (Respondent)

275/- after the lock-in period of one year as per Securities & Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital & Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009. The modus operandi is that the beneficiaries are allotted shares of Private Limited companies which amalgamates subsequently with listed penny stocks where they receive shares of listed penny stock in exchange of the private limited companies’ shares

BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -14, , MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 1645@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Bombay Footwear Private Limited Deonar Village, Behind Telecom Factory, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb2162P Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

section 263 of the Act to contend that the AO has failed to make enquiries and verifications that should have been made before passing the assessment order. The PCIT further changed the character of income from sale of land as “Business Income” as against “Capital Gains” offered by the assessee. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referred

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONL TAXATION)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. Been Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrigovernment Of Singapore V/S. Dcit (It) – 2(3)(2), C/O Ernst & Young Llp, बनाम Mumbai 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, 1711, 17Th Floor, Air Senapati, Bapat Marg, India Building, Nariman Dadar(W), Point, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajg0594R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

capital gains taxable under section 112A of the Act in the computation sheet. Ground of Appeal No. 7: Short grant of tax deducted at source P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2021-22 Government of Singapore 7. Erred in short granting of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 72,748,347 as claimed in the return of income filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. DIBYA TRADING CO LLP, MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Dibya Trading Co. Llp

gain and same cannot be used to pay dividend. The AO stated that JM Financial had manipulated accounting methodology so as to artificially inflate the distributable surplus. In the process, the SEBI guidelines have been flouted by the JM Mutual Fund by classifying portion of capital as distributable surplus and thereafter artificially pay out to the investor in the form

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 32(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

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

capital gains. It was emphasised that the authorities below proceeded solely on the date of the agreement and ignored the substance of the transaction, namely, that the property was under construction, that payments were made over a span of years, and that actual possession was received within the statutory time from the date of transfer of the original asset

ITO-24(3)(1),MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. RAMA RAJIV JAGDALE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain on sale of shares of Surbhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. Assessee furnished necessary details in this respect. 3.1. Assessee had purchased 1000 shares of Surbhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. on 27.02.2012 in physical form in offline mode through a broker Akrit Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently the shares were sent

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE-32(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed in terms indicated above

capital gains. It was emphasised\nthat the authorities below proceeded solely on the date of the\nagreement and ignored the substance of the transaction,\nnamely, that the property was under construction, that\npayments were made over a span of years, and that actual\npossession was received within the statutory time from the\ndate of transfer of the original asset

ANNU ANIL AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5473/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Annu Anil Agrawal V/S. Acit Cc 4(3), Mumbai Due C-3401/3402 Oberoi बिाम To Restructuring Current Esquire, Mohan Gokhale Jurisdiction Of Appellant Road, Off W. E. Highway, Lies With Acit 41(4)(1), Oberoi Garden City, Mumbai Goregaon East, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 400063 Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Admpa0248F Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रनिवादी ..

Gains and the same has been claimed as exempt income u/s. 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Annu Anil Agrawal 7. Appellant contends that, Assessing Officer and Appellate Authority erred in making adhoc addition of Rs. 26,69,703/- u/s 69C towards Unaccounted Commission Income on adhoc basis without bringing

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 234C, the interest liability can only increase to Rs. 65,40,275/-. In this regard, it was submitted that the assessee has duly submitted copy of the statement given date-wise details of the capital gains