MR.LEMES E. D'SOUZA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 21(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5802/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10) Mr. Lemes E. D’ Souza, Ito – Ward 21(3)(3), बनाम/ Alk Bricks Factory Room No. 507, 5 Th Floor, V. Company, C-11, Pratyakshakar Behind Sakinaka, Bhavan, Motor Training School, B.K.C. Bandra, Opp. Janseva Decoilers, Mumbai – 400 051. Sakinaka, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadpd7091 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

80C for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2006.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) “cost”, in relation to any long-term specified asset, means the amount invested in such specified asset out of capital gains

NIAMAT MAHROOF VIRJI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1964/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Niamat Mahroof Virji, I.T.O. 17(3)(3), बनाम/ Unit 232, 2 Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, V. Bussa Udyog Bhavan, Opp Parel P.O., T.J. Road, Mumbai. Sewree. Mumbai – 400 015. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahpv1071H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

80C for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2006.] ITA 1964/Mum/2014 9 Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) “cost”, in relation to any long-term specified asset, means the amount invested in such specified asset out of capital gains

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

gains of business or profession, how computed.— The income referred to in section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43C." These sections include, inter alia, deduction of depreciation under section 32 and deduction regarding expenditure on scientific research in the manner set out in section 34. Therefore, the deductions which the Supreme

ASST CIT CEN CIR 3, THANE vs. PRAKASH GUNAJISAWARDEKAR, THANE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Circle-3, Prakash Gunaji Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Sawardekar, बनाम/ Ashar It Park,B-Wing, 102/B, Atlanata Vs. Wagle Indl. Estate, Hiranandani Estate, Thane(W)-400602 B.G. Road, Patlipada, Thane(W)-400607 Pan No. Aadps1088B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

80C for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2006. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "cost", in relation to any long-term specified asset, means the amount invested in such specified asset out of capital gains

ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. BALDWIN D FERNANDES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2008-09 Income Tax Officer,-25(1)(4) Mr. Baldwin D.Fernandes, Room No.308, C-10, 4, The Anchorage Ic Colony, बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Borivali (West), Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400092 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaapf0096R

80C for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2006. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "cost", in relation to any long-term specified asset, means the amount invested in such specified asset out of capital gains

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

gains of business or profession, how computed.— The income referred to in section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43C." These sections include, inter alia, deduction of depreciation under section 32 and deduction regarding expenditure on scientific research in the manner set out in section 34. Therefore, the deductions which the Supreme

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

gains of business or profession, how computed.— The income referred to in section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43C." ITA. No.2522/Mum/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 These sections include, inter alia, deduction of depreciation under section 32 and deduction regarding expenditure on scientific research in the manner set out in section 34. Therefore

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

80C to 80U. Section 80B(5) defines the purposes of section VIA “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before making any deduction under the chapter. The deduction u/s 10B, in my view, has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profit & gains of the business

NIRANJAN SHRICHAND MATTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

section 80C to the extent of Rs. 17,071/-. 4. General 4.1 The learned CIT (A) deprived the Appellant of adequate opportunity to represent his case. 4.2 The appellant prays to Your Honour to cancel the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) under Sec. 250 and prays to allow the correct amount of expenses and deduction claimed as referred

ASST CIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BHASKAR GOPICHAND GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Renu Jauhri, Am

80C amounting to ₹1 lakh and deduction under section 80D amounting to ₹7,350/-. The assessee also claimed deduction under section 54EC amounting to ₹50 lakhs. 2.1. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the act, and was selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the act was issued along with, notice under section

SHRI. SESHATALPA SAI BODDUPALLI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO-23(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyai.T.A. No. 4168/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Vs. Ito-23(3)(3) Seshatalpa Sai Boddupalli A-11, Sunil Tulsiram Chs, Room No.-118, Matru Devidayal Nagar, Mulund(W) Mandir, Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 080 Mumbai-400 007 Pan : Aaipb1894M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144 of the I.T.Act. 4. The basic observation of the AO in the addition made read as under;- As regards the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of residential flat, the assessee had worked out the taxable gain at Rs. 7, 56,615/- by taking the date of acquisition as on 1st of April, 1981 on purchase value

SANJIV SOSHIL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble\N&\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble\Ni.T.A. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N Assessment Year: 2020-21\Nmr. Sanjiv Mehta\Nvs\Nprincipal Commissioner Of\Nworld Crest\Nlodha World Towers\Nw-5701 & E-5703\Nlower Parel\Nmumbai - 400013\N[Pan: Aanpm7571K]\Nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\Nassessee By:\Nrevenue By :\Nincome-Tax – 1, Mumbai\Nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\Nshri Ketan Ved & Ms. Riya Shah, A/Rs\Nshri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit, D/R\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 16/07/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement:\N/07/2025\Nआदेश/Order\Nper Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am:\N1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of\Nthe Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai\N[Hereinafter 'The Ld. Pr. Cit'] Dated 10/03/2025 Pertaining To Ay\N2020-21 Framed U/S 263 Of The Act.\N2. The Sum & Substance Of The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The\Nld. Pr. Cit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Conferred Upon Him By The\Nprovisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Further Erred In Holding That The\Nassessment Order Dated 25/08/2022 Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The\Nact Is Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.\N3. Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives\Nincome From Salary & Investments & Filed His Return Of Income On\Nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\Nincome Tax Appellate Tribunal\Nι.Τ.Α. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N2\N10/12/2020 Declaring Total Income At ₹ 23,71,38,203/-. The Return Was\Nselected For Scrutiny Assessment & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were\Nissued & Served Upon The Assessee. After Perusal Of The Return Of\Nincome, Materials Available On Record & Reply Furnished By The\Nassessee On Different Dates In Respect Of The Notices Issued, No Adverse\Ninference Was Drawn & The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was\Naccepted As Such.\N3.

80C\nPF Contribution\nDeduction under section 80G\nDeduction under section 80TTA\nTotal Income\n44,63,091\n(1,50,000)\n(31,150)\n(10,000)\n23,71,38,203\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nI.T.A. No. 2096/Mum/2025\n7\nSTATEMENT OF TAX LIABILITY\nParticulars\nIncome liable to tax at slab rates\nShort term capital gains

CHARU BIPINKUMAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, Ito 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aamps4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, Ito 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aakps2945N (Appellant) (Respondent)

80C was deleted against which the present appeal is filed before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 6211/M/12 in the case of ITO vs. Nitin J. Lathiwala dated

BIPINKUMAR V.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, Ito 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aamps4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, Ito 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aakps2945N (Appellant) (Respondent)

80C was deleted against which the present appeal is filed before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 6211/M/12 in the case of ITO vs. Nitin J. Lathiwala dated

RAJESH M JAIN (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 10(38).  CIT v/s Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court) 6 Rajesh M Jain (HUF) S.10(38)/69: Fact that a small amount invested in "penny" stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is "bogus" if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted.  Farrah Marker v/s ITO (ITAT Mumbai

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his 'gross total income'. Sub-section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the 'gross total income' of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his 'gross total income'. Sub-section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the 'gross total income' of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

M/S. INDAGRO FOODS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Gain derived from an Industrial Undertaking situated in backward area/district specified in the notification, interalia, that it manufactures or produce an article of things, not being article of things specified in Eleventh Schedule. The assessee fulfilled all 4 ITA No. 7342 to 7344 Mum 2008-M/s Indagro Foods Ltd. the condition for deduction under section 80IB. The assessee