DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Gains\"\nand section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer of capital assets,\npursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the purview of section 45 of\nthe Act. Therefore, we are of the view that these provisions have no\nrelevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

Gains\"\nand section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer of capital assets,\npursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the purview of section 45 of\nthe Act. Therefore, we are of the view that these provisions have no\nrelevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

HASMUKH DIPCHAND GARDI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

capital gain at Rs.\n70,30000/-\nD) Disallowance of Deduction u/s 35AC of the Act\n4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in\ndisallowing the deduction of Rs. 20,00,000/- claimed by the appellant u/s\n35AC of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KHAITAN HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LTD.,, MAURITIUS

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Dy. Cit, Circle-2(1)(2) (Intl. Tax.) M/S. Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) New Delhi Ltd. (Erstwhile Black Lion Ltd.) C/O. Axis Fiduciary Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, The Axis, 26 Cybercity Ebene 722 201, Mauritius

capital gain on sale of shares. 5. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority, inter alia, challenging the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it has been passed in the name of a non-existent entity. 6. While deciding the appeal, learned First Appellate Authority, having verified

ASHWIN LILADHAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin Liladhar Shah V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wile Mansion 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Abeps5329R (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain, income from business / profession and income from other sources. 3. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer treated the entire assessed income as the concealed income of the assessee since he has not filed return of income within the time prescribed u/s.139(1)/139(4) of the Act despite having taxable income. The Return of income was filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

292B of the Act.\nIn State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364.\nafter considering the case law on the point. The Division Bench\nanswered the questions in favour of the Revenue. It was held\nas under:\n33. We may summarise the principles emerging from the above\ndiscussion. (These are by no means intended to be exhaustive

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

292B of the Act.\nIn State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364.\nafter considering the case law on the point. The Division Bench\nanswered the questions in favour of the Revenue. It was held\nas under:\n33. We may summarise the principles emerging from the above\ndiscussion. (These are by no means intended to be exhaustive

ACIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M B PATIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , MUMBAI

Gains from Business and Profession.\n2. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the action of the\nA.O. in rejecting the books of accounts of the Assessee under\nSection 145(3) of the Act was arbitrary and without any basis,\nsince the transactions of the Assessee with

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

292B of the Act. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364. after considering the case law on the point. The Division Bench after considering the case law on the point

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

292B of the Act. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364. after considering the case law on the point. The Division Bench after considering the case law on the point

M/S M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Gains from Business and Profession.\n2. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the action of the\nA.O. in rejecting the books of accounts of the Assessee under\nSection 145(3) of the Act was arbitrary and without any basis,\nsince the transactions of the Assessee with

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question