ACIT-17(1), MUMBAI, 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

DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. CAPT. AVINASH J BATRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7407/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Capt. Avinash Chander Dy. Cit., Range, 2(3), बनाम/ Batra, Room No. 556, 5 Th Floor, V. C/O Kucheria & Associates Aayakar Bhavan, 59, Jolly Maker No. 2 Mumbai-400 021 Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpb3384M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

gains, it is required to deduct from full value of consideration, the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection ITA 7407/Mum/11 & ITA 7439/M/11 8 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

CAPT. AVINASH CHANDER BATRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7407/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Capt. Avinash Chander Dy. Cit., Range, 2(3), बनाम/ Batra, Room No. 556, 5 Th Floor, V. C/O Kucheria & Associates Aayakar Bhavan, 59, Jolly Maker No. 2 Mumbai-400 021 Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpb3384M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

gains, it is required to deduct from full value of consideration, the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection ITA 7407/Mum/11 & ITA 7439/M/11 8 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

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

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 from sale of flat and apply appropriate tax rate. Accordingly, ground no. J should be treated as allowed. 43. Ground No. K, the assessee has challenged the addition to the book profit on account of extra ordinary items of Rs. 2,73,20,474/-. 44. In this regard, the assessee has filed a separate compilation of paper book

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

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

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

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

DR. NARENDRA D. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CRN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5157 To 5159/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 To 2008-09) Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Vs. Acit, Cc-34, Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400071 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd 5020 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A Of The Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Years Pertains To Disallowance Of Claim Of Management Fees While Computing Short Term Capital Gain U/S.48 Of The I.T.Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Shown Income Under The Head Short Term Capital Gain. While Computing The Same Assessee Has Claimed

gains assessee has claimed deduction for the portfolio management charges paid to various entities which was disallowed by the lower authorities on the plea that expenditure was not incurred as a result of transfer of capital asset nor the same has expended the cost of acquisition of the asset nor it amounts to cost of any improvement. The scope

DR. NARENDRA D. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CRN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5157 To 5159/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 To 2008-09) Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Vs. Acit, Cc-34, Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400071 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd 5020 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A Of The Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Years Pertains To Disallowance Of Claim Of Management Fees While Computing Short Term Capital Gain U/S.48 Of The I.T.Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Shown Income Under The Head Short Term Capital Gain. While Computing The Same Assessee Has Claimed

gains assessee has claimed deduction for the portfolio management charges paid to various entities which was disallowed by the lower authorities on the plea that expenditure was not incurred as a result of transfer of capital asset nor the same has expended the cost of acquisition of the asset nor it amounts to cost of any improvement. The scope

DR. NARENDRA D. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CRN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5157 To 5159/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 To 2008-09) Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Vs. Acit, Cc-34, Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400071 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd 5020 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A Of The Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Years Pertains To Disallowance Of Claim Of Management Fees While Computing Short Term Capital Gain U/S.48 Of The I.T.Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Shown Income Under The Head Short Term Capital Gain. While Computing The Same Assessee Has Claimed

gains assessee has claimed deduction for the portfolio management charges paid to various entities which was disallowed by the lower authorities on the plea that expenditure was not incurred as a result of transfer of capital asset nor the same has expended the cost of acquisition of the asset nor it amounts to cost of any improvement. The scope

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, 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

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 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

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

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