ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD ACC,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 115AD of the act at the rate of 30% of ₹ 3,736,780/–. It has short-term capital loss for the current year of ₹ 1,189,960/–. This leaves with the balance of natural short-term capital gain of ₹ 2,546

ISHARES MSCI EM IMI ESG SCREENED UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 115AD of the act at the rate of 30% of ₹ 3,736,780/–. It has short-term capital loss for the current year of ₹ 1,189,960/–. This leaves with the balance of natural short-term capital gain of ₹ 2,546

ISHARES EMSC MAURITIUS CO ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 115AD of the act at the rate of 30% of ₹ 3,736,780/–. It has short-term capital loss for the current year of ₹ 1,189,960/–. This leaves with the balance of natural short-term capital gain of ₹ 2,546

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

546 (Del. Trib.) order dated 22/04/2016. 2.1. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Shri Rajat Mittal, contended that statement of broker was recorded and relied 3 Ajay J. Doshi upon the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

capital receipt of the appellant which is not liable to be included in the total income of the appellant……………………….. 211. The above mentioned conclusion also finds support from Circular No. 2/2018 dated 15.02.2018 of the CBDT containing the Explanatory Notes to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 dealing with the rationale for insertion of clause (x) of section

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

capital receipt of the appellant which is not liable to be included in the total income of the appellant……………………….. 211. The above mentioned conclusion also finds support from Circular No. 2/2018 dated 15.02.2018 of the CBDT containing the Explanatory Notes to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 dealing with the rationale for insertion of clause (x) of section

SHRI. SAJAL RADHIKAMOHAN KAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27 (3) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

section, and the son becomes the owner of the property for all the purposes. The deceased/assessee, admittedly, had no domain and/or right whatsoever on the said property. This fact itself, therefore, disentitled him to claim any exemption as there were various non-compliances of the conditions as per the scheme

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

546. It was further observed that the assessee deposited the capital gain consideration in the capital gain account scheme and claim deduction under section

MRS SUNITA SHYAM MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain from purchase and sale of shares which is exempt under section 10(38) of the 9 ITA . No. 344/MUM/2023 (A.Y.: 2010-11 SUNITA SHYAM MILPANI Act, the primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing the supporting evidence. We find that the assessee is a regular investor in shares. We also find that

URMILA BHABERA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Mrs. Urmila Bhabhera, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 901/902, Shanghvi Villa, S. Income Tax -20(3), Mumbai, 5Th V. Road, Andheri (W), Room No.506, Floor, Mumbai 400 058 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aajpb 6192K Appellant .. Respondent

546/-.The return was subsequently processed and case was selected for scrutiny. The assessment was completed u/s 143 (3) of the Act vide Order dated 28-11-2008 wherein apart from capital gains on sale of shares income shown by the assessee as income from “business” The AO held that the long term capital gains of Rs.23

PANKAJ K. DHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Pankaj K. Dharia Vs. Ito 16(1)(1) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 10 C Sett Minar 16 A.G. Deshmukh Marg Tardeo Road Mumbai- 400026 Mumbai- 400007 Pan No. Aabpd6642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri. G.P. Mehta Respondent By : Ms. Bharti Singh

section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 ( hereinafter ‘the Act’) for the AY 2008- 09, vide his order dt. 01/12/2010. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in treating the profit arising out of sale & purchase of shares as business income as against declared

RONAK MARBLE INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD. 24(3)(4) (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS WARD 20(2)(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 53A of the TPA, 1882. The ld. AR further submitted that the transfer could only be said to have taken place only when the transferee has performed its part of contract. In the present case, the commencement certificate was given in the subsequent year to M/S Nanavati construction by the Municipal Corporation and therefore the capital gain could

ITO 24(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. RONAK MARBLE INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 53A of the TPA, 1882. The ld. AR further submitted that the transfer could only be said to have taken place only when the transferee has performed its part of contract. In the present case, the commencement certificate was given in the subsequent year to M/S Nanavati construction by the Municipal Corporation and therefore the capital gain could

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

gains. 3.6 The Ld.AO noted that the assessee was a beneficiary of this scam by adopting modus operandi mentioned hereinabove, assessee claimed short term capital loss along with claim of dividend income which is a colourable nature of transaction. 3.7 The assessee was thus issued notice under section 148 on 20/03/2023. In response, assessee filed its return of income

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI , MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

gains. 3.6 The Ld.AO noted that the assessee was a beneficiary of this scam by adopting modus operandi mentioned hereinabove, assessee claimed short term capital loss along with claim of dividend income which is a colourable nature of transaction. 3.7 The assessee was thus issued notice under section 148 on 20/03/2023. In response, assessee filed its return of income

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

gains. 3.6 The Ld.AO noted that the assessee was a beneficiary of this scam by adopting modus operandi mentioned hereinabove, assessee claimed short term capital loss along with claim of dividend income which is a colourable nature of transaction. 3.7 The assessee was thus issued notice under section 148 on 20/03/2023. In response, assessee filed its return of income

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

gains. 3.6 The Ld.AO noted that the assessee was a beneficiary of this scam by adopting modus operandi mentioned hereinabove, assessee claimed short term capital loss along with claim of dividend income which is a colourable nature of transaction. 3.7 The assessee was thus issued notice under section 148 on 20/03/2023. In response, assessee filed its return of income

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

gains. 3.6 The Ld.AO noted that the assessee was a beneficiary of this scam by adopting modus operandi mentioned hereinabove, assessee claimed short term capital loss along with claim of dividend income which is a colourable nature of transaction. 3.7 The assessee was thus issued notice under section 148 on 20/03/2023. In response, assessee filed its return of income