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

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

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

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

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

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

366 ITR 356 held that the assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is not allowable, as she was the owner of more than one residential house at the time of sale of the original capital asset. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F of the Act to the tune

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

366 ITR 356 (Karn.). Accordingly, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act in respect of the total capital gains

MR. DOLLAR CHUNILAL MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

366 ITR 635 as well as on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v.Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd.,reported in 281 ITR 210, in support of its claim that exemption under sections 54E/54F is available even in respect of capital gains

AMIT BHOLANATH MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 22(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramit Bholanath Mishra Acit Circle 22(1), 502, Heena Elegance, Piramal Chamber, Saibaba Nagar, Borivali Vs. Lal Baug, Parel, (West), Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aampm3121G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2026

section 50 of the Act as short-term capital gain or loss. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer recomputed depreciation for the relevant earlier years, recalculated the written down value of the motor cars and determined a net short-term capital loss of Rs. 2,25,366

GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONL TAXATION)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. Been Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrigovernment Of Singapore V/S. Dcit (It) – 2(3)(2), C/O Ernst & Young Llp, बनाम Mumbai 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, 1711, 17Th Floor, Air Senapati, Bapat Marg, India Building, Nariman Dadar(W), Point, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajg0594R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

366 earned by the Appellant as gains derived from transactions pursuant to the conduct of commercial activities and thereby not exempt under Article 22 of the IS Treaty. Ground of Appeal No. 3: Long-term capital gains under section

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

366. The Ld. Assessing Officer further relied n the Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer furthe Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer furthe Everest Industries Ltd. 20 ITA No. 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Century Enka Century

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

366. The Ld. Assessing Officer further relied n the Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer furthe Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer furthe Everest Industries Ltd. 20 ITA No. 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Century Enka Century

CHINTAN SHAILESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-30(1)(2), NOW ITO WARD-41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarchintan Shailesh Shah Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1)(2) Rushikesh, Shanti Nagar, (Now Ward 41(3)(1)) Adarsh Dugdhalaya Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Malad (W), Mumbai – Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400064. 400051. Pan/Gir No. Amzps2768Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 6.2.10 Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Courts as above, I am of the considered view that AO had rightly rejected the claim of the appellant regarding long term capital gains on such sham transactions and adding back gains

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

section 54EC in respect of capital gains \narising on depreciable assets. \n\n17. This issue arises in the following appeals: \n\n Assessment year \nGround No. in \nAssessee's appeal \n\nGround No. in \nRevenue's appeal \n\n2006-07 \n- \n2 \n\n17. 1. Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.54,49,21,366

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

gains. The treasury bills being capital asset, the surplus arising out of its redemption can neither be taxed as revenue receipt. The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted LA that this issue is decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

gains. The treasury bills being capital asset, the surplus arising out of its redemption can neither be taxed as revenue receipt. The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted LA that this issue is decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee