SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

gains only and cannot be extended beyond that. Thirdly, section 54E does not make any distinction between depreciable asset and non depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction created under section 50. Section 54E specifically provides that where capital

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

gains only and cannot be\nextended beyond that. Thirdly, section 54E does not make any distinction between\ndepreciable asset and non depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption\navailable to the depreciable asset under section 54E cannot be denied by referring\nto the fiction created under section 50. Section 54E specifically provides that\nwhere capital

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

gains only and\ncannot be extended beyond that. Thirdly, Section 54E does not make any distinction\nbetween depreciable asset and nondepreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption\navailable to the depreciable asset under Section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the\nfiction created under Section 50. Section 54E specifically provides that where capital

ZODIAC JRD MKJ LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

54E specifically provides that where capital gain arising on transfer of a long-term capital asset is invested or deposited (whole or any part of the net consideration) in the specified assets, the assessee shall not be charged to capital gains. Therefore, the exemption under section

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

gain but the asset remains a long-term capital asset and does not become a short-term capital asset by virtue of section 50 C of the act. 023. This aspect has been considered by the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Ace builders private limited 281 ITR 210 with respect to exemptions under section 54E

LATE PRAVINCHANDRA DWARKADAS DALAL (LEGAL HEIR HITEN PRAVINCHANDRA DALAL),MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 42(3)(1) ERSTWHILE CIRCLE 33(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain. However, this deeming fiction is restricted only for the purpose of section 50 of the Act and the benefit u/s. 54E

CHERYL OSCAR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 54E provides exemption in respect of capital gain arising from transfer of a long-term capital asset if whole

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

gains addition, the Tribunal held that the lands sold were agricultural lands, situated beyond 8 km from the municipal limits (based on physical measurement and Google Maps evidence), and therefore not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act. The Revenue's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

capital gains on sale of \"PENNY\" stocks cannot be treated as bogus & unexplained cash credit if the documentation is in order. Farrah Marker vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 vide order dated 27.04.2016\n\nVIII] Further Ahmedabad Tribunal in Manojkumar Sarawagi (HUF) (ITAT 'A' Bench, Ahmedabad Order dated 16.3.2012 in ITA No. 3233 & 3156/Ahd/2010) has held that evidence

OMNIFIC ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER .21(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

gains only and cannot be extended beyond that. Thirdly, Section 54E does not make any distinction between depreciable asset and non- depreciable asset and therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under Section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction created under Section 50. Section 54E specifically provides that where capital

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

capital gain.\" (c)The sale transactions were off-market transactions and the Calcutta Stock Exchange by its letter dated May 26, 2005, has confirmed that quite a few of the transactions carried out by Shri Pradeep Kumar Daga were not borne on the records of the exchange and that the details noted on some of the other contract notes

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

section 50 of the Act as against rate as applicable to Short term capital gains. This alternate plea had been taken by the appellant in case the ground taken above with respect to adjusting the capital gain with brought forward business losses is not allowed. The assessee relied upon the decision of hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

section\n50 were already there in the statute.\nPara-16. In the case of CIT v. ACE Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), exemption\navailable u/s.54E in respect of long term capital gains was denied to the\nassessee where capital gain was computed u/s.50 as short term capital gain on\ntransfer of long capital asset which was deemed to be a short

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section\n50 were already there in the statute.\nPara-16. In the case of CIT v. ACE Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), exemption\navailable u/s.54E in respect of long term capital gains was denied to the\nassessee where capital gain was computed u/s.50 as short term capital gain on\ntransfer of long capital asset which was deemed to be a short

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

section 50 of the Act as against rate as applicable to\nShort term capital gains. This alternate plea had been taken by the\nappellant in case the ground taken above with respect to adjusting the\ncapital gain with brought forward business losses is not allowed. The\nassessee relied upon the decision of hon'ble Bombay High Court in\nthe case

PHULCHAND EXPORTS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

section 50 of the Act as against rate as applicable to\nShort term capital gains. This alternate plea had been taken by the\nappellant in case the ground taken above with respect to adjusting the\ncapital gain with brought forward business losses is not allowed. The\nassessee relied upon the decision of hon'ble Bombay High Court in\nthe case

HUNTSMAN INVESTMENTS (NETHERLANDS),MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous\nyear shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 41[***] 42[54, 54B, 43[***] 44[45[54D,\n46[54E

DCIT ,CC- 3 (3), MUMBAI vs. WELSPUN MERCANTILE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no\norder as to costs

Gains (apart from Share Capital and Unsecured\nLoans). Several entities connected to Mr. Anil Khemka, entities named by Mr. Anil\nKhemka or entities connected to the entities named by him have traded in the scrip\nof Sulabh. Considering that Mr. Anil Khemka is connected to Mr. Subodh Agarwal,\nas seen above, it becomes imperative to consider that the said Noticees