JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

548,57,143 3193,15,225 2317,99,394 115,02,93,092 Gain(A) Commission @ 74,21,040 64,40,987 133,54,039 27,42,857 159,65,761 115,89,970 575,14,655 5% o’A’(B) Total

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

548,57,143 3193,15,225 2317,99,394 115,02,93,092 Gain(A) Commission @ 74,21,040 64,40,987 133,54,039 27,42,857 159,65,761 115,89,970 575,14,655 5% o’A’(B) Total

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

548,57,143 3193,15,225 2317,99,394 115,02,93,092 Gain(A) Commission @ 74,21,040 64,40,987 133,54,039 27,42,857 159,65,761 115,89,970 575,14,655 5% o’A’(B) Total

VERITAS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

capital gain.” 12. Accordingly, AO made the addition of Rs. 2,00,76,725/- in the hands of the assessee company as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act; and he also added 5% commission amounting to Rs.10,03,836/- on the LTCG which according to him, has been paid by assessee to facilitate accommodation entry to the entry

JT. CIT (OSD) ,CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. VERITAS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

capital gain.” 12. Accordingly, AO made the addition of Rs. 2,00,76,725/- in the hands of the assessee company as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act; and he also added 5% commission amounting to Rs.10,03,836/- on the LTCG which according to him, has been paid by assessee to facilitate accommodation entry to the entry

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

gains arising from the transfer of shares in the hands of transferor companies by taking advantage of exemption under Section 47(iii). However, it is not relevant in so far as for the purpose of determining the tax liability in the hands of the assessee company being Transferee Company arising from the transfer of shares for nil consideration. He also

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

gains arising from the transfer of shares in the hands of transferor companies by taking advantage of exemption under Section 47(iii). However, it is not relevant in so far as for the purpose of determining the tax liability in the hands of the assessee company being Transferee Company arising from the transfer of shares for nil consideration. He also

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN.CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SUDHIR SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

section 57 of the Act. The\nlearned CIT(A) further held that in the acquisition of shares for capital gains, the\ndividend income is incidental and not a major factor, and it is thus clear that the sole\npurpose of borrowing by the assessee @12% per annum cannot be for the purpose of\nearning dividend income. Accordingly, the interest expenditure

SUDHIR S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

section 57 of the Act. The\nlearned CIT(A) further held that in the acquisition of shares for capital gains, the\ndividend income is incidental and not a major factor, and it is thus clear that the sole\npurpose of borrowing by the assessee @12% per annum cannot be for the purpose of\nearning dividend income. Accordingly, the interest expenditure

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could not be done by the revenue legally in the proceedings u/s 153Aof the Act on the assessee.‖ 41.Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that any addition under section68andsection 69Cof the Act in the facts of the present case

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could not be done by the revenue legally in the proceedings u/s 153Aof the Act on the assessee.‖ 41.Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that any addition under section68andsection 69Cof the Act in the facts of the present case

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could not be done by the revenue legally in the proceedings u/s 153Aof the Act on the assessee.‖ 41.Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that any addition under section68andsection 69Cof the Act in the facts of the present case

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could not be done by the revenue legally in the proceedings u/s 153Aof the Act on the assessee.‖ 41.Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that any addition under section68andsection 69Cof the Act in the facts of the present case

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could not be done by the revenue legally in the proceedings u/s 153Aof the Act on the assessee.‖ 41.Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that any addition under section68andsection 69Cof the Act in the facts of the present case

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could not be done by the revenue legally in the proceedings u/s 153Aof the Act on the assessee.‖ 41.Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that any addition under section68andsection 69Cof the Act in the facts of the present case

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could not be done by the revenue legally in the proceedings u/s 153Aof the Act on the assessee.‖ 41.Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that any addition under section68andsection 69Cof the Act in the facts of the present case

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system