BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

capital gain.” Thus, from the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that for the purpose of holding an asset, it is not necessary that the assessee should be the owner of the asset based upon a registration of conveyance conferring title on him. 11. Similarly, in the case of Madhu Kaul (supra), the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court analysed various

AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR-8(40, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains

AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR -8(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains

DCIT CC 8(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains

DCIT CC 8(4) ., MUMBAI vs. M/S. AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains

DCIT C.C. 8(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains

RAVI JAKHAR,MUMBAI vs. ASS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 35(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

gain and accordingly, taxed. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee approached the High Court of Karnataka. While answering the question, the Court took into consideration the definition of "short-term capital asset" as defined under section 2(42A), the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) bearing Circular No. 684 dated 10-6-1994 and pointed

MOHAMMED FARHAN MOHAMMED YUNUS ATTARWALA,MUMBAI vs. WARD 20(2)(1), NFAC DELHI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

29A) and as he had purchased another flat on 31.01.1989, such capital gain is set off u/s. 54. However, the assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee by taking the date of possession as 15.05.1986 by treating the capital gain as short-term capital gain. On these set of facts, Hon'ble Court referred to CBDT circular

SANJAY V. JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains in the hands of the assessee’s brother was upheld by the Tribunal in respect of the same transaction. We find that in the memorandum of appeal filed under section 260A of the Act against the aforesaid order passed by the coordinate bench, which forms part of the paper book from pages 59-105, the assessee’s brother

JAGMEET SINGH SABHARWAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX

capital gains long-term. Regarding the second ground, it was held that the difference between the sale consideration and the value determined by the stamp duty authority was within the permissible limit, thus no addition under section 50C was warranted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "50C", "2(47)", "2(29A

CHETAN H DAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Om Prakash Kant ()

29A, Carmichel Road, Mumbai- 400 026 PAN : AAAPD5792J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for Appellant None Present for Respondent Shri K.C. Selvamani, CIT DR Date of hearing 05/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 18/04/2023 ORDER PER : OM PRAKASH KANT These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, ITA No.4557/Mum/2010 ITA 4376/Mum/2014 Shri

CHETAN H DAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Om Prakash Kant ()

29A, Carmichel Road, Mumbai- 400 026 PAN : AAAPD5792J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for Appellant None Present for Respondent Shri K.C. Selvamani, CIT DR Date of hearing 05/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 18/04/2023 ORDER PER : OM PRAKASH KANT These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, ITA No.4557/Mum/2010 ITA 4376/Mum/2014 Shri

CHETAN H DAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Om Prakash Kant ()

29A, Carmichel Road, Mumbai- 400 026 PAN : AAAPD5792J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for Appellant None Present for Respondent Shri K.C. Selvamani, CIT DR Date of hearing 05/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 18/04/2023 ORDER PER : OM PRAKASH KANT These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, ITA No.4557/Mum/2010 ITA 4376/Mum/2014 Shri

BAJAJ HINDUSTAN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

capital receipt. This conclusion is apparent from plain reading of S. 45 r.w. section 2 (14)/(29A)/298) & (47). In the instant case, the gain

ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN SUGAR LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

capital receipt. This conclusion is apparent from plain reading of S. 45 r.w. section 2 (14)/(29A)/298) & (47). In the instant case, the gain

ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN SUGAR PVT.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

capital receipt. This conclusion is apparent from plain reading of S. 45 r.w. section 2 (14)/(29A)/298) & (47). In the instant case, the gain

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

capital receipt. This conclusion is apparent from plain reading of S. 45 r.w. section 2 (14)/(29A)/298) & (47). In the instant case, the gain

BAJAJ HINDUSTAN SUGAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

capital receipt. This conclusion is apparent from plain reading of S. 45 r.w. section 2 (14)/(29A)/298) & (47). In the instant case, the gain