ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL GULABDAS SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5134/Mum/2017 & Co. No. 319/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit – 24(1) Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah, Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, B-1601, Titanium Towers बनाम/ 16Th Floor, Jai View Chsl Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Sahakar Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmfps-8959-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)/Respondent (""थ" / Respondent)/Appellant : Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil G. Shah – Assessee-In-Person सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-36/It-217/Acit-24(1)/15-16 Dated 26/05/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

section 56 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the question of treating the same as income from other sources would not arise at all. Therefore, right to sue cannot be subjected to income tax under the head 'capital gains'. The fact brought to my knowledge by the AO in the remand report that in nutshell, ongoing through set aside order

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREY GULERI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-16(1) Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri बनाम/ Room No.439, Aayakar Prime Channel Software Bhawan, 101, M.K. Road Communications P. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai 400 020 215, Kuber Complex New Link Road Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaapg4566H याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dilip V. Lakhani ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

capital asset, the gain arising therefrom should be taxed. The case of the assessee was re-opened 4 Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri with the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act which was responded by the assessee. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish the reply. The assessee also furnished various judicial

BUNKIM FINANCE & INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 14A, directed Ld. AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of exempt income and deleted the balance disallowance of Rs.6.39 Lacs. The same has given rise to one of the grounds of cross-appeals. 3.3 Upon due consideration, we find that as per settled legal position, the provisions of Rule 8D were not applicable to the year under consideration

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

capital gains under Section 2(14)(iii), considering the method of distance measurement from municipal limits (physical vs. aerial). 4. Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A

GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ Gic Housing Finance Ltd. Addl. Cit Rg 2(1) Royal Insurance Building, R.No. 561, 5 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, J. Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Churchgate, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg2755R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Amit Kirve Revenue By : Shri A.M. Mittal, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 22/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 21.10.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 22.10.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016

Section 48 of the 1961 Act , only the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of capital assets is allowed as deduction while computing capital gains. The AO observed that in the instant case , the expenses incurred of Rs. 96,73,108/- were in the form of fee paid towards legal consultancy, professional advisors and financial advisors costs

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaishri Omkareshwar Chidara

capital gains on slum sale under section 50 B of the act, and disallowed claim of additional depreciation on computers of Rs.3,38,66,060/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The assessee filed additional evidence under rule 46A

MANISH KUMAR JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

section 143(3) of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that income from sale and purchase of shares of Rs.7,63,08,004/- has correctly been assessed as income from business and profession instead of Short Term Capital Gain by citing various reasons

MRS. URMILA JAGDISH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 33(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle 33(3), Mrs. Urmila Jagdish Bandra Kurla Mehta Complex, Bandra (E), 1604, E-Wing, Agarwal Vs. Mmbai-400 051 Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Adipm5257E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

section 54 and assessed the gains as short-term capital gains. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that she had received possession of the redeveloped flat in the year 2010 and, therefore, the holding period exceeded 36 months, rendering the gains as long-term

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD) CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

capital gains under 20 Korn Ferry Section 46A of the Act. Section 46A of Act was introduced by Finance Act 1999. In the course

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

capital gains under 20 Korn Ferry Section 46A of the Act. Section 46A of Act was introduced by Finance Act 1999. In the course

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain accrued on the sale of immovable property. These submissions were made in compliance with Rule 46A which were admitted and accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). In this respect a remand report was called from the Ld. Assessing Officer which was submitted by him on 10.02.2020. In the remand report, though the Ld. Assessing Officer had objected

DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. NADIR NAZARALI DHANANI, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.100/Mum./2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–24(3), C–11, 7Th Floor …….………. अऩीरधथी / Bandra Kurla Complex Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 V/S Shri Nadir Nazarali Dhanani Plot No.1B, Cama Industrial Estate ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Cama Estate Main Road Respondent Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aabpd3008Q प्रत्मधऺेऩ सं. / C.O. No. 42/Mum./2014 (आमकय अऩीर सं. 100/Mum./2013 से उद्बूत) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 100/Mum./2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) Shri Nadir Nazarali Dhanani Plot No.1B, Cama Industrial Estate …….………. अऩीरधथी / Cama Estate Main Road Appellant Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aabpd3008Q V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Circle–24(3), C–11, 7Th Floor Bandra Kurla Complex Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri Santosh Mankaskar ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Yougesh Thar A/W Shri Devang K. Shah

46A, despite the assessee failing to produce the documents during assessment proceedings, and further erred in deleting the addition of Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 18,42,146/- made by the Assessing officer when there was no increase in the actual cost of any assets falling within the block of assets.” Shri Nadir Nazarali Dhanani

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

capital gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries illegally seized from the Appellants premises and uncorroborated evidence .The Appellants pray that the same be deleted. 4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act be deleted

SUMAN KADAM,THANE vs. ITO WD 2(4), THANE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2777/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Suman Kadam Ito, Ward 2(4), बनाम/ Vardaan, 6Th Floor, S/1, Narmada Apartment, Cabin Cross Road, Bhayandar (E), Ashar I. T. Park, Road No. 16-Z, Vs. Thane-401 105 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afipk 3600 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3256/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Ito, Ward 2(2), Suman Kadam Thane-400 604 Thane-401 105 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Vijay Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Debabrata Baidya सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 08.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 27.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 31.12.2010. 2

Section 2(47) were fulfilled and thus the capital gain thereof did not pertain to the year in question. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-II, Thane has erred in law and in facts by holding that the Appellant's action of withdrawing the aforesaid capital gains erroneously offered in the year under consideration on the premise

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

capital gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries illegally seized from the Appellants premises and uncorroborated evidence .The Appellants pray that the same be deleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B and 234C

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) TDS 3, MUMBAI

capital gain of the concerned share holder,that the arrangement was made to use of the provisions of section 46A

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

capital gain of the concerned share holder,that the arrangement was made to use of the provisions of section 46A

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries\nillegally seized from the Appellants premises and\nuncorroborated evidence. The Appellants pray that the same be\ndeleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under sections 234B of\nthe Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under sections\n234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 50B considering the legal framework as well as the basic principle that capital gain is always a portion of sale consideration, and, therefore, portion can never be higher than the whole. Further, I agree with the appellant that the sale consideration as agreed between parties is to be considered for computing capital gains. In light of the fact that