M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

32A or section 33 or section 33A or the first proviso to clause\n(ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36 or any loss carried forward under sub-\nsection (1) of section 72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-section\n(1) 55 [or sub-section (3)] of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AJJAY AGARWAL (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.4295/Mum/2023 of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gains from the sale of shares is not genuine." Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 has held that test of human probabilities should not be applied to verify whether any transactions is real or an attempt has been made

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

Capital Gains' and 'Income from Other Sources'. The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the completed under Section

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

gains of the business; (iii) the\ncondition subsequent, the fulfilment of which may result in the reduction\nor even extinction of the liability, would not have the effect of converting\nthat liability into a contingent liability; (iv) a trader computing his taxable\nprofits for a particular year may properly deduct not only the payments\nactually made to his employees

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

HUNT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LLC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INT TAXATION,2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 916/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2015-16) Hunt International Investments Llc 205-206, Regent Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Road, 208, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aadch0520J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle International Taxation-2(1)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. A.N. Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Anil Sant, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2023 Passed Under Section 144C(13)/143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Sh. A.N. Shah Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Is A Tax Resident Of Usa. The Assessee Is A Registered Foreign Portfolio Investor [Category-Iii]. The Assessee Primarily Invests In Shares To Earn Long Term

Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of aforesaid shares, the said LTCG was claimed as exempt from tax under section 10(38) of the Act. There being no taxable income during the relevant previous year, the assessee did not file any return of income. A notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 30.04.2021 for non-filing of return

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after all the machines

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after all the machines