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 , 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

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

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT - 10 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

gains of the business; (iii) the condition subsequent, the fulfilment of which may result in the reduction or even extinction of the liability, would not have the effect of converting that liability into a contingent liability; (iv) a trader computing his taxable profits for a particular year may properly deduct not only the payments actually made to his employees

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