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

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

MOHEMMED ANWAR BY LEGAL HEIR MOHAMMED AAMER,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, 17(2), MUMBAI

capital gains and income from other sources. After claiming\ndeduction under section 80C and section 80TTA of the Act, the assessee

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

LAXMAN GORE SHRESHTHA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

capital gain and claimed a loss of Rs. 3,24,937/-. The Assessing Officer denied the claim and added back the entire maturity amount.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the reopening was done after four years on a wrong assumption that the assessee had claimed exemption under Section 10(10A) or 10(10D). The assessee had declared the income

CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

Capital Gain / Loss, purchase, sales, loans and advances and Investments etc submitted by appellant. III. Against Addition of Rs. 18.14 Crores The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the addition made by the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

Capital Gain / Loss, purchase, sales, loans and advances and Investments etc submitted by appellant. III. Against Addition of Rs. 18.14 Crores The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the addition made by the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances

PANKAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

Capital Gain / Loss, purchase, sales, loans and advances and Investments etc submitted by appellant. III. Against Addition of Rs. 18.14 Crores The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the addition made by the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances

LAXMAN GORE SHRESHTHA,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

gain and has claimed loss of Rs. 3,24,937/-. This treatment of the assessee of treating the surrender value as capital loss is incorrect for the reason that the money received from prematurely encashed pension policies do not come under the, purview of exempted income as per section 10(10D) of the I T Act as pension policy

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

gains of\nthe company, notwithstanding the provisions contained in section\n10(2), which must necessarily include section 10(2) (xv). This section\ncontains substantive provision and is not merely clarificatory in\nnature. This section clearly contemplates that even if the\nrequirements of section 10(2) including the necessary requirements\nunder section 10(2)(xv) are satisfied, the Income-tax Officer

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

capital gains & Income from Other Sources thereby the gross total income being positive, is entitled to claim deduction under section 80HHE. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee by holding that – “The contentions raised by the assessee are perused. The assessee's contention for allowing deduction u/s 80HHE against income from Other Sources

NTT GLOBAL NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -6, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

80C (LIC, PPF, NSC etc.), 80D (Mediclaim), 80G (Donations), etc. has been extended to 30th June, 2020. Hence the investment/payment can be made up to 30.06.2020 for claiming the deduction under these sections for FY 2019-20. iv. The date for making investment/construction/purchase for claiming roll over benefit/deduction in respect of capital gains

KAMALA PITARAM CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

capital gain is not justified. 4. (i)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 22 lakhs us 68 of the IT Act 1961. (ii) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition

MS BINA SURESH GIDWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT WARD 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the alternative submission raised

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Capital Gains' and not granting benefit of indexation under Section 48 of the Act and beneficial rate of tax under Section 112 of the Act. 4. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel and learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying interest of Rs. 5,89,536/- under Section 234A of the Act without appreciating the fact that return was filed within

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

gains of\nthe company, notwithstanding the provisions contained in section\n10(2), which must necessarily include section 10(2) (xv). This section\ncontains substantive provision and is not merely clarificatory in\nnature. This section clearly contemplates that even if the\nrequirements of section 10(2) including the necessary requirements\nunder section 10(2)(xv) are satisfied, the Income-tax Officer

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. JYOTI A. KULKARNI, PUNE

gains of\nthe company, notwithstanding the provisions contained in section\n10(2), which must necessarily include section 10(2) (xv). This section\ncontains substantive provision and is not merely clarificatory in\nnature. This section clearly contemplates that even if the\nrequirements of section 10(2) including the necessary requirements\nunder section 10(2)(xv) are satisfied, the Income-tax Officer