M/S. GYANSHANKAR INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P. LTD.(BEFORE AMALGAMATION M/S. STELLAR CREDIT& E-TRADING P. LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-7(1)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2012-13

gain accruing from the transfer, in any manner whatsoever, of the business or profession as a result of the succession" Thus, as per section 170(l)(a) & (b) of the Act, the predecessor i.e. Stellar Credit And E-Trading Private Limited should be assessed/reassessed for the AY 2012-13 in question which is prior to the PY in which succession

ACIT CIRCLE-7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PIRAMAL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2338/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Piramal Enterprises Tax, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No. Ltd. 128A, 1 St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Successor In Interest To M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Piramal International Pvt. फनाभ/ Ltd. 10, Piramal Tower, G.K. Vs. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcp6125D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Mansi Padhiyar, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 09.04.2021

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

M/S. CHURU TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD NOW MERGED WITH SPRIT TEXTILES PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(1)PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIT RANGE 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Churu Trading Co. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited (Now Income Tax, Range-8(2)(2) Merged With Spirit Textiles Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 18Th Floor, A-Wing Marathon Futurex N M Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aalcs5905J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Churu Trading Co. Private Income Tax, Range- Limited (Now Merged With Spirit 8(2)(2) Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 18Th Floor, A-Wing Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020 Marathon Futurex N M Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc4853G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

SAMADHAN KRISHNA KATEKAR,RAIGAD vs. ITO WD 3 PANVEL, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshmr. Samadhan Krishna Ito. Ward-3, Katekar, L/H Of Late Krishna Vs. Panvel Range, Trifed Tower, Kathari Katekar, Opp. Khanda Colony, At Dhutum, Taluka-Uran, Navi Mumbai-410206. District-Raigad. Pan: Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Prakash Pandit (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement :12.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (Act) Is Directed Against

capital gain (STCG). And similarly the receipt of cash of Rs. 85,52,000/- be not taxed to the total income of the assessee. 5. The show cause notice was replied on behalf of the assessee vide reply dated 18.03.2014 (wrongly noted as 18.03.2004). In the reply the background of allotment of plot admeasuring 2450 was explained. It was explained

SURAJKUMAR & SONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant, Member & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Surajkumar & Sons 302,-C, Shivshakti Chs Ltd., Kashinath Dhuru Marg, Agar Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaqfs4464G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent

Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of property. 3 ITA No. 258/Mum/2019-M/s Surajkumar & Sons. 4. The assessee was in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the impugned assessment order passed by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) then upheld the order of Ld. AO. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order

SUREAKSHA DB REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 30(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

292B. It appears that the said decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court was not brought to the notice of honourable tribunal at the time of arguing the case of luxury goods retail private limited which is directly on this point and by a superior authority. 27, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the issues

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SPOT LIGHT CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer - 8(3)(3) V. M/S. Spot Light Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor {Amalgamated With M/S. Valentine Aayakar Bhavan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.,} M.K. Road Flat No. 253, 25Th Floor Mumbai-400 020 Kalpataru Horizon, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400 031 Pan: Aalcs4106K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N. Kapadiaa & Shri Navinkumar Mishra Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

capital and share premium received by the assessee. 3 M/s. Spot Light Constructions Pvt. Ltd., {Amalgamated with M/s. Valentine Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.,} 4. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. In the course of the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SUPERWAVE CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD.(AMALGAMATED WITH M/S.VALENTINE MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer - 8(3)(3) V. M/S. Superwave Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor {Amalgamated With M/S. Valentine Aayakar Bhavan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.,} Flat No. 253, 25Th Floor M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Kalpataru Horizon, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400 031 Pan: Aajcs3336H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N. Kapadia & Shri Navinkumar Mishra Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

capital and share premium received by the assessee. 4. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. In the course of the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order passed in the name of M/s. Superwave Constructions

IMRAN A TANKIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7372 /Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Imran A. Tankiwala The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/O. Saif Marine, 220, Ward 13(2)(1) Vs. Vyapar Bhavan, 49, 425, Aayakar Bhavan, D’Mello Road, Mumbai - 400020 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai - 400009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapt7403Q

292B of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2 A.Y. 2004-05 6. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has patently erred in holding that non-jurisdictional officer’s action of not providing “reason recorded” and “approval sought” to the Appellant, even though legal and valid demand was made by the Appellant vide letter dated 05.04.2011 [filed

SIEMENS POWER ENGINEERING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Siemens Power Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax – Circle – (Now Merged With M/S. 8(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan Room No.624, 6Th Floor Siemens Limited) 130, Pandurang Budhkar M.K.Road, Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Worli, Mumbai – 400 019 Pan/Gir No.Aaccs5323F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital adjustment already given to the Appellant by the Ld. TPO in the order dated 29 January 2014 passed u/s 92CA (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The application filed for rectification u/s 1 54 of the Act by the Appellant before the Ld, AO is pending disposal. 4. On facts

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

gains have been offered to tax in subsequent years. We also find that similar claims have been allowed in subsequent assessment years. Thus, on independent appreciation of facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A) which we affirmed with our additional observation. In the result, corresponding ground of appeal raised by revenue

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

gains have been offered to tax in subsequent years. We also find that similar claims have been allowed in subsequent assessment years. Thus, on independent appreciation of facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A) which we affirmed with our additional observation. In the result, corresponding ground of appeal raised by revenue

BRINDABAN III CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Brindaban Iii Co-Operative Income Tax Officer, Ward- Housing Society Ltd., 24(1)(1), Mumbai Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves Vs. Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 093 (Pan : Aabab2518A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Kinjal Bhuta, Advocate Revenue : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

section 292B. Based on this and taking into consideration the intent and purpose of the Act, the total assessed income was taken at Rs.13,23,770/- for the purpose of calculation of penalty. Subsequently, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act 4 Brindaban III Co operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd., AY 2012-13 was confirmed for alleged concealment of income

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

gains. The dividend income was claimed as exempt. The distributable surplus was allegedly inflated by improper classification of capital as distributable surplus, in violation of SEBI guidelines. Survey proceedings were conducted in the 3 Ramesh Purshottam Modi premises of JM Financial Asset Management Ltd. Statement of Shri Sanjay Chhabaria, Fund Manager, was recorded on oath. 4. The Assessing Officer observed

LATE ANANDA RAJGOPALAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24 (1)(2), MUMBA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

capital gain of Rs.31,39,069/-. The Assessing Officer opined in penalty proceedings that clearly the assessee had offered the same as his case was in scrutiny if the same was not the case this income have escaped the assessment. Further, as per the AIR the assessee had received Rs.31,876/- & Rs.109/- but not offered the same for taxation. Hence

B.G. SHARMA (DECEASED) ( BY L/H SHRI MUKESH B SHARMA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhb. G. Sharma (Deceased) Ito 14(3)(1), (By His L/H Shri Mukesh B. Mumbai. Sharma), C/O. Sharma Picture Publication, Vallabhdas Kanji Vs. Bldg., 175 Princess Street, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Adups8279E (Appellant) (Respondent) B. G. Sharma (Deceased) Ito 14(3)(1), (By His L/H Shri Mukesh B. Mumbai. Sharma), C/O. Sharma Picture Publication, Vallabhdas Kanji Vs. Bldg., 175 Princess Street, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Adups8279E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain of Rs. 24,64,900/- on transfer of asset. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the action of assessing officer was confirmed. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal holding that appeal for 3 ITA No. 387/M/12 & 1536/M/13- B.G. Sharma (Deceased) assessment year 2008 -09 has been dismissed, wherein the protective addition was made in that assessment year. Thus

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

gain u/s.47(xiii). Thus, the claim of depreciation on assets acquired under such transfer is restricted only to the extent as if no transfer h taken place, ft is absolutely clear that under 5th Proviso to section 32(1 )(ii), the appellant company is not eligible for depreciation on enhanced value of trade mark. Once the claim of depreciation

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI vs. SHRI NAVNITLAL RATANJI SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(3) Shri Navnitlal Ratanji Shah M-3, 13Th Floor, Eden Hall, Mumbai Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018

capital gains and income from other sources. Further to this, notice u/s. 142(1) dated 23.07.2015 was issued. The A.O. passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 28.03.2016 by determining the total income at Rs.6,68,13,580/- in the name of the assessee by making various additions/disallowances. It is observed that during the assessment proceeding, the assessee expired