NETLINK SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 25/12/2017 determining total income of Rs. 2,00,39,275/-. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has claimed exemption on Long Term Capital Gain on sale of the shares amounting to ₹1

MOHD RAZA AKBERALI GHUGHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

275/- Rs.26,69,725/- 2.13. As per provisions of section 54, this amount was required to be invested in the new asset to claim exemption. The assessee has invested a sum of Rs.29,51,368/- which is more than long term capital gains and he is therefore, entitled for full exemption u/s 54. The long term capital gain works

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

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

A.C.I.T.19(2), MUMBAI vs. ALKA KIRITKUMAR UPADHYAY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2617/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) A.C.I.T. – 19(2), Smt. Alka Kiritkumar बनाम/ Room No. 315, 3 Rd Floor, Upadhyay, V. Piramal Chambers, Alka Bldg., 6T H Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai –400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapu0228Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(2) of the Act , it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee has offered short term capital gain of Rs. 44,97,330/- for taxation in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee was asked to explain why the income derived from short term capital gain should not be treated as income from business

GREAVES COTTON LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GREAVES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

275. The Ld. CIT(A), held that if any adjustment is made on account of unutilized CENVAT credit in the closing stock then proper effect of section 145A should be given and corresponding adjustment is to be made in the opening stock. For coming to this conclusion, he relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. " If the aforesaid reasons of reopening are analyzed, we find that the Ld. Assessing Officer has relied upon a letter received from another Assessing Officer i.e. ACIT, which speaks about search carried out in the case of group concern, which was alleged to be involved in artificial capital gains. Further it was also

LEGRAND NEDERLAND B.V.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP has erred in treating the capital gains of INR 138,47.19,180 as dividend under section 2(22)(d) of the Income- tax Act. 1961 (the Act), out of the total capital gains of INR 275

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

1. Addition of Rs. 2,54,98,050/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). 1.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in Rs.2,54,98,050/- under section

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

275. [(1)] No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- [(a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 [or section 246A) or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gain. Tribunal partially restore the addition on account of unproved/ unsubstantiated the purchase at Rs. 30,96,176/- being 75% of the total addition made by the AO at Rs. 41,28,262/- on estimated basis. After the receipt of the order of the Tribunal, the AO started penalty proceedings by issuing show cause notices under section 275

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gain. Tribunal partially restore the addition on account of unproved/ unsubstantiated the purchase at Rs. 30,96,176/- being 75% of the total addition made by the AO at Rs. 41,28,262/- on estimated basis. After the receipt of the order of the Tribunal, the AO started penalty proceedings by issuing show cause notices under section 275

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gain. Tribunal partially restore the addition on account of unproved/ unsubstantiated the purchase at Rs. 30,96,176/- being 75% of the total addition made by the AO at Rs. 41,28,262/- on estimated basis. After the receipt of the order of the Tribunal, the AO started penalty proceedings by issuing show cause notices under section 275

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

275/- 3. Foreign exchange difference (net) 2,03,29,551/- 4. Insurance claims 1,44,86,719/- 5. Miscellaneous earnings 61,372/- 6. Interest on Loan to employees 1,58,288/- TOTAL 3,96,81,035/- The Appellant has not taken this ground before Hon'ble ITAT against the Order of CIT(A) dated 30.01.2009 for not considering

PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu Vice Presedent,(As) Shri D. Karunakar Rao & Shri Amit Shukla, Sh. Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarperfect Thread Mills Ltd Vs Dcit, 8(2), Mumbai 201, Millenium Plaza Behind Sakinaka Telephone Exchange, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72 Pan: Aaacp6449E Appellant Respondednt

capital gain' as per the computation of income, incorporated at page 3 of the Draft order. 3. However, the main bone of contention was the claim of amount adjusted by the Bank against the principal amount of loan of Rs. 1,48,24,633/- (out of the sale proceeds) as deduction u/s 48(i) as cost by the assessee

ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. VARSHA PRITAM REWARI, MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer 17(3)(5) Smt. Varsha Pritam Rewari Room No. 137, 1St Floor Flat No. 25, Cci Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dinshaw Vachha Road Mumbai 400020 Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aadpr9676G Appellant Respondent

capital gains on sale of land at Balkum would not be correct in the absence of the A.O. bringing on record any material which Smt. Varsha Pritam Rewari would show that the assessee had sold any other land in Village Balkum which had not been disclosed in her return. From the Deed of Conveyance of the impugned property

MAHESH M. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2976/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi, Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 303/304, Sholay Income Tax – 20(2), V. Apartments, Mumbai. Raheja Complex, Seven Bungalows, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpg3545P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

capital gain. In view of the above facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.12,23,642/- and thus penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) if the I T Act, 1961 is initiated separately on this point.” It is also pertinent to refer to the judgment