BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

44 results for “capital gains”+ Section 88Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai44Kolkata11Delhi11Ahmedabad8Karnataka1Pune1Telangana1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 88E76Section 143(3)66Section 115J44Section 14A33Section 15425Short Term Capital Gains25Business Income23Addition to Income22Disallowance20Capital Gains

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5303/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that during the year under consideration ‘security transaction tax’ was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

18
Long Term Capital Gains16
Section 26313
ITA 5302/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
22 Jan 2016
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that during the year under consideration ‘security transaction tax’ was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 3053/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that during the year under consideration ‘security transaction tax’ was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA SURESH JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4476/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that during the year under consideration ‘security transaction tax’ was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5441/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that during the year under consideration ‘security transaction tax’ was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 2469/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that during the year under consideration ‘security transaction tax’ was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5442/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that during the year under consideration ‘security transaction tax’ was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4475/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that during the year under consideration ‘security transaction tax’ was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E

SURESH K JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4366/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that during the year under consideration ‘security transaction tax’ was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E

KETAN S JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006-2007

ITA 6649/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Ketan S Jhaveri, The Ito, Ward 19 (2)(2), C-2, Haripreet, 42, Piramal Chamber, St. Andrews Road, Mumbai Santacruz (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400054 Pan: Aabpj1844N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande &
Section 143Section 88E

88E the I T Act against the tax liability arising, when the short term capital gain is computed under the head business income. 3. Without prejudice on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the submission of the appellant with regard to allowing the closing stock

MAHALAXMI INNOVATIVE SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light our aforesaid observations

ITA 4856/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4856/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd. Dcit Cir 2(2) बिधम/ 1004, 10Th Floor, Maker Chambers-V, Mumbai Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm9810C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 88E of the ‘Act’. i) Plain reading of the Circular shows, it has been issued by the CBDT only to update its earlier Instruction No 1827 of 31.08.1989 for information of the assessees as well as for guidance of the Assessing Officers. Thus the Circular seeks merely to update the instruction and does not replace it. The assessment order

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3758/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainil&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai L&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh a/w

88E for STT paid by the assessee. During hearing before us, Ld. AR fairly conceded that the amount of STCG earned by the assessee included certain intra-day gains / losses which were in the nature of speculation and hence were required to be excluded while arriving at figures of STCG. Therefore, at the outset, we direct Ld. AO to exclude

ASST CIT CIR 13(2), MUMBAI vs. KUNVERJI NANJI KENIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the department and the cross objection filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 576/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. S.R.SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Pradi P. Kapasi

capital gain taxable at the reduced rate of 10% u/s 111A have duly suffered the Securities transactions tax (STT) and further the assessee has not claimed any benefit u/s 88E in respect of such STT. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to say the assessee will be allowed opportunity of hearing in the fresh proceedings

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. LARSEN & TOUBRO FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4459/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

capital gain. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in indulging in double taxation in respect of gain on securitization which had already been taxed by him (as confirmed by the Tribunal for earlier years) as under: Assessment Year Amount(Rs.) 2003-04 4,75,04,976 2004-05 88,53,915 3. The Assessing Officer failed to consider that the Appellant

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3981/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

capital gain. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in indulging in double taxation in respect of gain on securitization which had already been taxed by him (as confirmed by the Tribunal for earlier years) as under: Assessment Year Amount(Rs.) 2003-04 4,75,04,976 2004-05 88,53,915 3. The Assessing Officer failed to consider that the Appellant

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3982/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

capital gain. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in indulging in double taxation in respect of gain on securitization which had already been taxed by him (as confirmed by the Tribunal for earlier years) as under: Assessment Year Amount(Rs.) 2003-04 4,75,04,976 2004-05 88,53,915 3. The Assessing Officer failed to consider that the Appellant

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

capital gain. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in indulging in double taxation in respect of gain on securitization which had already been taxed by him (as confirmed by the Tribunal for earlier years) as under: Assessment Year Amount(Rs.) 2003-04 4,75,04,976 2004-05 88,53,915 3. The Assessing Officer failed to consider that the Appellant

MADHAV STOCK VISION P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 581/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 88ESection 88E(2)

capital gain on share of Rs.6,79,160/-. The assessment was completed vide order dated 16.09.08 passed under section 143(3) of the Act by assessing the income of Rs.1,25,79,870/- by making various disallowances. Thereafter, the AO passed a rectification order under section 154 of the Act on the ground that excess rebate under section 88E

PRAKASH SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2624/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2624/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, ARs’For Respondent: Shri Somnath M. Wagale, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(10)Section 88E

gains of business or profession. Such income has to be referred only in the context of meaning given in sub– section (1). If the business income of the assessee company is taxed at maximum marginal rate, then rebate is to be allowed for the security transaction tax paid on such income only under section 88E. The short term capital

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

ITA 2522/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Chauhan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rohit Kumar (DR)
Section 14ASection 40

Capital Gain on sale of equity shares of BSE Ltd. and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made there under. 4(a). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income