SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain 5,24,02,19,366 Taxable @ 10% Income from Other sources 1,24,38,93,370 Taxable @ 20% (Dividend income) Income from Other sources 1,90,920 Taxable @ 30% (interest from company) Total Taxable income 6,56,03,95,980 15. Assessed under section

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

capital gain towards the purchase of the\nproperty, the fact that the said property was not registered or\nthe possession was not obtained was irrelevant for the\npurpose of section 54 of the Act.\n10. It was further pointed out by the assessee that before\nfiling its return of income u/s 139(1) i.e. on 31-07-2015, the\nassessee

DCIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S WALL STREET FINANCE LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gain arising during the year. As a result, ground no.1, raised in Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 14. The issue arising in ground no.2, raised in Revenue’s appeal is with regard to disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). Wall Street Finance Ltd. ITA No.2175/Mum./2019 15. The brief facts

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed

HEMANT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Hemant Shah Acit-20(1), Mumbai 10, Oomed Sadan 58, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 Vs Pan : Aadps2405E Appellant Respondednt

section 54F. Consequently, such capital gain does not accrue or arise and, therefore, does not form part of gross total income. If capital gain is not charged u/s 45, there is no capital gain chargeable to tax. Therefore, the investment made by minor children u/s 54F left no chargeable capital gain which could be clubbed u/s 64(1A) in hands

GREAVES COTTON LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GREAVES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

capital gain since the block of assets in which said asset falls as on 01.04.2003 was at ‘Nil’ 4,19,85,605/- 11 K Addition on account of book profit u/s 115JB on extraordinary items 52,73,20,474/- 12 L Deduction from books profit u/s 115JB the Revaluation Reserve of Rs. 6,80,317/- which was withdrawn and credited

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

SAURASHTRA FUELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Gains’. The learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO and held that there are no provisions u/s 48 of the Act to allow PMS charges paid by the assessee company as the Section 48 of the Act contemplate only two deductions namely, i) Cost of acquisition and cost of improvements and ii) cost incurred wholly and exclusively related

MATEEN PYARALI DHOLKIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mateen Pyarali Dholkia Dcit-19(3) 90, Gr. Floor, Hill Road, Opp. Vijaya Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bank Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Abapd1241K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2018

section 48. [Para 13] At the time of hearing, the assessee raised an alternative contention in support of his claim for deduction on account of fees paid for PMS in computing the capital gains relying on the theory of real income and the rule of diversion of income by an overriding title. He contended that the fees for PMS being

ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

gain of Rs.51.22 crores which it claimed as exempt under section 10(34) and 10(38) of the Act. The company was not having any borrowing till 31.03.06 as per audited balance sheet. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had surplus own fund which can be verified by balance sheet wherein the assessee has share capital

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

gain of Rs.51.22 crores which it claimed as exempt under section 10(34) and 10(38) of the Act. The company was not having any borrowing till 31.03.06 as per audited balance sheet. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had surplus own fund which can be verified by balance sheet wherein the assessee has share capital

DIPTI NALIN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

capital gains on sale of its property on purchase of both flats, more so, when the flats are situated side by side and the builder has effected modification of the flats to make it as one unit, despite the fact that the flats were purchased by separate sale deeds.” 7 Commissioner of The Honorable Bombay High Court held that Income

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Capital Gains (LTCG)of Rs.3,41,03,340/- and claimed exemption U/sec10(38) of the Act. The assessee has sold the shares in the financial year 2010-11 through a SEBI registered broker on stock exchange. The Ld. AR demonstrated in support of shares, sale bills/contract notes, securitization tax paid at page 1 to 81 of the paper

JUST TEXTILES LTD,AMBERNATH vs. DCIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 48 of the Act. The assessee submitted before the A O that since the sale consideration is combined and by offering income U/s 50, assessee has paid more tax by not taking advantages of indexation hence there is no escapement of income. The A O has passed reassessment order U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 25/03/2013

KHANDELWAL LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

section 94(7) and 94(8) of the IT Act for disallowing loss incurred on L & T shares. 37. Issues with regard to the delayed payment of PF and ESI and computation of book profit u/s. 115JB was not pressed by the ld. AR, the same are therefore dismissed in limine as not pressed. 38. In the result, the assessee