VINAY PARMANAND HARIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT), WARD-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Kempinski Private Residences Room No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Unit 40F Dki Jakarta, 10310 India Building, Nariman Point, Indonesia. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabph 4179 A Appellant Respondent

Capital Gain without providing the information collected directly by the AO to Gain without providing the information collected directly by the AO to Gain without providing the information collected directly by the AO to the assessee, when it is specifically requested by the assessee and the assessee, when it is specifically requested by the assessee and the assessee, when

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

gain exemption U/s 10(38) of the Act. The relevant documents like bank transaction, share transaction copy, paid through STT, ledger and demat account were duly submitted before the revenue authorities. The Ld.AR relied on the order of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal which are as follows: - 4.1. Luminaire Technologies Limited. order dated 27/07/2012

ATYANT CAPITAL INDIA FUND-I,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL) TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital loss can be\ncarried forward or intra head adjusted cannot be made against the short term\ncapital loss or gain. Therefore, the legislature has kept this difference in carry\nforward as well as intra head adjustment separate for LTCG/LTCL and\nSTCG/STCL. On further perusal of Section 70 to Section 74, it can be seen that\nthe Legislature itself

JM FINANCIAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

capital loss relied on the decision in the case of Jannhavi Investment Pvt, Ltd. (304 ITR 276 Bom.) and Dahiben Umedbhai Patel vs. Normal-Jeans Hamilton & Others reported in 57 Comp. Case 700 Bom. and held that the computation of such loss by applying the provisions of section 55(2)(aa) is not correct. Accordingly the CIT(A) held that

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. J.M. FINANCIAL LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

capital loss relied on the decision in the case of Jannhavi Investment Pvt, Ltd. (304 ITR 276 Bom.) and Dahiben Umedbhai Patel vs. Normal-Jeans Hamilton & Others reported in 57 Comp. Case 700 Bom. and held that the computation of such loss by applying the provisions of section 55(2)(aa) is not correct. Accordingly the CIT(A) held that

ABHISHEK TEJRAJ DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleabhishek Tejraj Doshi V. Income Tax Officer 259, 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion Jurisdiction Circle 19(1), Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai, Mumbai Mumbai 400002 Pan: Aegpd9279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anil Sathe Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

capital gain is not allowable. iv. The order of SEBI referred above has also given the similar finding that the prices of the shares were determined artificial by manipulations and cannot be a product of market factors and commercial principals. e. Failure of Assessee to discharge his onus: The assessee has not been able to prove the unusal rise

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 69C of the Act to the extent of\n*.51,860/- taxable income of the assessee.\n14. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and\nraised grounds of appeal and filed detailed written submissions.\nLd.CIT(A) after considering the submissions and findings in the\nassessment order, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. GIRRAJ KISHOR AGRAWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grouds of appea raised by the revenue are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

276 (Gujarat) held that where the assessee claimed long term capital gain under section 10(38) arising on sale of shares

YASHWANT RAJ LALCHAND BAMBOLI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-27(3)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankaryashwant Raj Lalchand V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Bamboli बनाम 27(3)(5), 4Th Floor, Tower 7, Trimurti Building, 105-A, No. 6, Vashi Station N.G. Acharaya Marg, Complex, Mumbai –400703, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aijpb5149A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

276) and Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Yogesh Thakkar (ITA no.1605/Mum/2021) and held the long term capital gain as genuine. P a g e | 9 A.Y. 2014-15 Yashwant Raj Lalchand Bamboli, Mumbai 6. We have duly considered the facts of the case, the contents of the assessment order, detailed submissions of the assessee as also various

AAKRUTI KETAN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-35(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

276, 277 of the written submissions dt. 03.01.2022 and 288 and 289 of the written submissions dt. 10.11.2022 and also confirmed by CIT(A) in its Order at para 4.3.3 page 10 and 11 and page 307 and 308 of PB)  The debit-note dated 28-11-2021 of M/s. Santoshima Trade Link Ltd of Is. 11,00,000.00 issued

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

gains. The treasury bills being capital asset, the surplus arising out of its redemption can neither be taxed as revenue receipt. The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted LA that this issue is decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee

SINDHUMATI RAMAVTAR PATHAK,BORIVALI MUMBAI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 32 3 MUMBAI PRESENTLY DY C I T CIRCLE 42 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak Acit-32(3) 4, Shree Bhalchandra Kripa Presently Cit, Circle Building, Daulat Nagar Road Vs. 42(3)(1) No. 3, Borivali East Kautilya Bhavan Bkc, Mumbai-400 066. Mumbai-51. Pan : Agbpp5972D Appellant Respondent

section 10(38) of the Act on sale of shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. as under: - 4 Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak i. Shares of Conart Trader's Ltd Purchased on 23.08.2011 - Page 6 of the PB ii. Purchase consideration paid through Cheque No. 977940 - Page No. 12 of PB iii. Shares allotted to the Appellant on 01.11.2011-Page

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

capital gain would not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. We should also note that the assessment order itself was passed after assessee furnished its revised computation of income. A mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income of assessee. Such claim made in the returns cannot

ALKA DILIP DOSHI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2014-15

276/- and declared Long term capital gain of Rs.1,88,08,631/-, which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Based on the information so given by the Investigation wing, the AO took the view that the long term capital gains declared by the assessee is not genuine one and accordingly reopened the assessment by issuing notice

ARVIND BHAGUJI KANGANE,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-27(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 of appeal are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Arvind Bhanguji Kangane Dcit, Circle – 27(1), Mumbai Shreyas Building, 11Th Road, Plot No. 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Vs 553, Flat No. 901, 9Th Floor, Opp. Railway Station Building, Navi Heritage Pride Building, Chembur, Mumbai – 400703. Mumbai – 400026. [Pan: Afypk1856R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 115BBE in the assessment order dated 23.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of reopening as well as additions on merit. On the merits of the case, the assessee submitted that he has furnished sufficient documentary evidence to justify

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

gains. 35. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that amount of Rs.117 crores was received by the P a g e | 17 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) assessee from Allianz A.G. Germany under the agreement prior to the joint venture of the company with Allianz A.G. Germany

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

gains. 35. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that amount of Rs.117 crores was received by the P a g e | 17 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) assessee from Allianz A.G. Germany under the agreement prior to the joint venture of the company with Allianz A.G. Germany

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 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate