ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

4A) of section 11,] tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11[or section 12], as if the relevant income not so exempt were the income of an association of persons : [Provided that in a case where the whole or any part of the relevant income is not exempt under

INDIAN EXTRUSIONS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Indian Extrusions Acit-24(3) B-316/317, Virwani Industrial Vs. Mumbai. Estate,Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 063 (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 45(4) has no application to the facts of this case.” 8.4 The above decision of the Karnataka High Court, with due respect, is different from the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the A. N. Naik Associates case (supra). The Karnataka High Court laid stress on the point that the capital asset of the firm should

SUPERMAX PERSONAL CARE P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI

Section 2(4A) and capital asset was defined as‘property of any kind held by an assessee,whether or not connected with his business, profession or vocation’,and the definition then excluded certain properties mention -ed in that clause.The definition of ‘Income’was also expanded, and word income was defined so as to include ‘any capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL DILIP SANKHE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

section 56(2)(v) by the assessing officer can be corrected u/s. 292B of the IT Act and the income is to be assessed u/s 56(2)(vii)(a) of the IT Act." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the sale price for shares of PBPL

PUNJAB KESARI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in above terms

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer (Exemption) – 2(2) Punjab Kesari Charitable Room No. 502, Trust, 5Th Floor, 242, Bhandar Galli, Vs. Piramal Chamber, L.J. Road, Mahim- 400016 Lalbaug- 400012, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp0040R Assessee By : Shri. S. M. Kapoor Revenue By : Ms Madhu Malati Ghosh (Cit-Dr)

capital expenditure as well as depreciation. The assessee trust did not submit any reply on that issue. Hence, the claim of assessee of depreciation of Rs.26,21,923/- was disallowed on account of double deduction claimed by the assessee. Further, the assessee has claimed exemption Under Section 11 of the Act, with regard to income from dispensaries and hospital

ACIT CIR 16(1), MUMBAI vs. APURVA MAHESH SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sh. Apurva Mahesh Shah, 1403, Tax-16(1), Mumbai. Pleasant Palace, Narayan बिधम/ Dabholkar Road, Mumbai-400 Vs. 006. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Abbps3726K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

gains, it is required to deduct from full value of consideration, the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer and also the cost of acquisition of the capital asset and cost of any improvement thereto. With the above background, we have to see whether the portfolio management charges of Rs. 22,64,272/- paid by the assessee

FORT CANNING INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

capital gains on sale of right entitlement would not be covered under Article 13(5), instead would be covered under Article 13(4B) of the India-Singapore DTAA and hence would be taxable in India. 12.1. In this regard, it is worth taking note of contents of Article 13 for our ready reference: “[4A. Gains from the alienation of shares

FORT CANNING CREDIT INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

capital gains on sale of right entitlement would not be covered under Article 13(5), instead would be covered under Article 13(4B) of the India-Singapore DTAA and hence would be taxable in India. 12.1. In this regard, it is worth taking note of contents of Article 13 for our ready reference: “[4A. Gains from the alienation of shares

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 69A Total KB AY 2014-2015 1,15,96,000 - 1,15,96,000 AY 2015-2016 4,96,95,000 2,50,000 4,99,45,000 AY 2016-2017 2,98,20,000 - 2,98,20,000 The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others

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

Capital Gains - NOC amount received from Eksali land\n2) Addition of Rs.2,50,000 U/s 69A-entries in diaries not pertaining to NOC were taxed under section 69A\n\n15. Similar additions have been made in other assessment years and the summary of additions which have been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on the same reasoning which has been

NATWAR LAL GALA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

gains by manipulation in the market price of the shares of the company is evident on perusal of the daily trade records of the scrip. Page No. | 14 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 24. Assessing Officer observed that Mr R.K. Kedia admitted that Rander Corporation Ltd and DhenuBuildcon Infra

NATWAR LAL GALA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

gains by manipulation in the market price of the shares of the company is evident on perusal of the daily trade records of the scrip. Page No. | 14 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 24. Assessing Officer observed that Mr R.K. Kedia admitted that Rander Corporation Ltd and DhenuBuildcon Infra

NATWAR LAL DAGA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

gains by manipulation in the market price of the shares of the company is evident on perusal of the daily trade records of the scrip. Page No. | 14 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 24. Assessing Officer observed that Mr R.K. Kedia admitted that Rander Corporation Ltd and DhenuBuildcon Infra

NATWAR LAL DAGA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

gains by manipulation in the market price of the shares of the company is evident on perusal of the daily trade records of the scrip. Page No. | 14 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 24. Assessing Officer observed that Mr R.K. Kedia admitted that Rander Corporation Ltd and DhenuBuildcon Infra

PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu Vice Presedent,(As) Shri D. Karunakar Rao & Shri Amit Shukla, Sh. Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarperfect Thread Mills Ltd Vs Dcit, 8(2), Mumbai 201, Millenium Plaza Behind Sakinaka Telephone Exchange, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72 Pan: Aaacp6449E Appellant Respondednt

capital gains. The present one is a case of application of income by the assessee. Further the Apex Court dealing with the issue of diversion of income by overriding title in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sunil J. Kinariwala reported in 2003 (259) ITR 10 held as follows; 31 ITA 4964/Mum/2013 It may be pointed out that

SURESH MOHAN KANWAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 69/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 68/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 67/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 66/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 65/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 64/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Section 10(38) as the said long term capital gain got merged with other long term capital gains on shares earned by the assessee which were exempt u/s 10(38). This is an feeble attempt as perusal of return of income u/s 139(1) which is placed in paper book clearly revealed that the assessee disclosed long term capital gain

SAMITA SURESH KANWAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 69/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 68/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 67/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 66/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 65/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 64/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Section 10(38) as the said long term capital gain got merged with other long term capital gains on shares earned by the assessee which were exempt u/s 10(38). This is an feeble attempt as perusal of return of income u/s 139(1) which is placed in paper book clearly revealed that the assessee disclosed long term capital gain

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

Capital Gains\nKB | 69A | Total |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| AY 2014-2015 | 1,15,96,000 | - | 1,15,96,000 |\n| AY 2015-2016 | 4,96,95,000 | 2,50,000 | 4,99,45,000 |\n| AY 2016-2017 | 2,98,20,000 | | 2,98,20,000 |\n\n18\nITA No.3012/Mum/2025 and others\nThe Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others