EASTSPRING INVESTMENTS INDIA EQUITY OPEN LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(2)(1) - MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S\Nshri Sandeep Singh Karhail\Nita No.1219/Mum/2025\N(Assessment Year :2022-2023)\Neastspring Investments India Equity\Nopen Ltd.,\N3Rd Floor, 355 Nex Rue Du Savoir,\Ncybercity Ebene, Mauritius\Npan - Aadcp4503H\Nappellant\Nv/S\Ndcit (It) – 2(2)(1),\Nroom No.606, 6Th Floor,\Nkautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43,\Ng-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,\Nbandra (East), Mumbai\Nmaharashtra - 400051\Nrespondent\Nassessee By : Shri Ketan Ved\Nms. Riya Shah\Nrevenue By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing – 05/05/2025\Ndate Of Order – 09/05/2025\Norder\Nper Sandeep Singh Karhail, J.M.\Nthe Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment\Norder Dated 27.12.2024, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(3)\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act\"), Pursuant To The Directions Dated\N30.11.2024 Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai,\N(“Learned Drp”) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year\N2022-23.\N2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:\N“Re.: Disallowance Of Set-Off Of Brought Forward Short-Term Capital Losses\Nincurred On Equity Transactions That Were Subjected To Securities\Ntransaction Tax (Stt) Against Short Term Capital Gains On Sale Of Right\Nforms Not Subject To Stt\N1.

583/-, after making an addition of\nshort-term capital gains amounting to Rs.172.09 crore taxable at 15% and\nshort-term capital gains amounting to Rs.3,16,31,410/- taxable at 30%.\n7. The learned DRP, vide its directions dated 30.11.2024 issued under\nSection 144C(5) of the Act, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and\nupheld the computation

M/S. SUMIT EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT 19(3) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

583,834 Indexed cost of improvement (1,35,000*852/389) (1999-2000] 295,681 Long Term Capital gain 73,04,341 4. Assessing Officer observed that as per the working submitted by the assessee, assessee has shown acquisition of property in Financial Year 3 M/s. Sumit Export 1998-99 and in subsequent few years assessee has carried out improvement

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

583/- Indexed Cost (Rs.) 6 000/- (ii) Incidental Expenses for above sale (iii) Amount adjusted by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd against principal amount of Loan out of sale proceeds of company's Land taken possession by them under SARFAESI ACT 148.24.633/- 1,51,74,218/- 66,26,046'/- Long Term Capital Gains 4. In the assessment, AO issued a show

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

SHEHROZ ZAKIR HUSAIN MALIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 26(3)(20, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late Sh. Shehrozzakir Husain Malik Income Tax Officer-26(3)(2), Through Legal Heir Shahbazshehroz Malik, Pratyakshakar, C-11, 1307, Rcs & Associates Mayuresh Cosmos Vs. Bandrakurla Complex, Tower, Sarovarvihar Road, Sector-11, Cbd Bandra East, Belapur, Mumbai-400051. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan No. Aagpm 4512 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neeraj Mangla, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

583/- ignoring the fact that the assessee purchased the new flat within the period prescribed u/s 54 of the Act. Thus, the exemption claimed must be allowed. 5. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, alter, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. 3. The assessee

NANCY TRADERS,ULHASNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Nancy Traders, Dy. Cit Circle 1, A-25/145 Kala Palace, Ground Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Madhuban Hotel Road C Block, Vs. Swanand Colony, Gandhar Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-421001. Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan-421301. Pan No. Aagfn 3518 E Appellant Respondent

capital gain, even then in such a situation the losses ation the losses brought forward from earlier years were available to be set off brought forward from earlier years were available to be set off brought forward from earlier years were available to be set off which had not been allowed/considered by Ld. Assessing which had not been allowed/considered

GURUVASTU PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Guruvastu Properties P. Ltd. Dcit – 1(1)(4) 47, 7Th Floor, Tardeo Ac Market 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034 M K Road, Mumbai-400 020

583/- under the normal provision and book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act at Rs.21,10,711/- having derived income from long term capital gain (LTCG for short) on sale of land and income from other sources. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued

MORARJEE REALITIES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS PENINSULA LAND LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T. CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

583 900 (4,84,24,953) money Ltd Total (65,29,19,139) 32 Morarjee Realties Ltd. ITA Nos. 2135 & 2343/Mum/2009 Short Term Capital Loss: Nature of Shares No. of Purchase Sale Profit/ (Loss) Asset Transferred shares Cost Proceeds Equity Morarjee 29,58,240 82,31,980 85,78,896 3,46,916 Shares Brembana Ltd Share Morarjee

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 153Cof the Act been adopted by the revenue, then it would be in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Vikram SujitkumarBhatia(supra). Hence the consideration of denial of exemption u/s 10(38)of the Act for the long term capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 153Cof the Act been adopted by the revenue, then it would be in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Vikram SujitkumarBhatia(supra). Hence the consideration of denial of exemption u/s 10(38)of the Act for the long term capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 153Cof the Act been adopted by the revenue, then it would be in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Vikram SujitkumarBhatia(supra). Hence the consideration of denial of exemption u/s 10(38)of the Act for the long term capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 153Cof the Act been adopted by the revenue, then it would be in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Vikram SujitkumarBhatia(supra). Hence the consideration of denial of exemption u/s 10(38)of the Act for the long term capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 153Cof the Act been adopted by the revenue, then it would be in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Vikram SujitkumarBhatia(supra). Hence the consideration of denial of exemption u/s 10(38)of the Act for the long term capital gain on sale of shares of MARL could