THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. SACHIN R. TENDULKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 19(3), Shri Sachin R. Tendulkar, R.No.305, 3Rd Floor, 19-A Perry Rd, बनाम/ Pirmal Chanbers, Bandra (E) Vs. Parel Mumbai-400050 Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapt4135B Revenue By Shri Ta Khan (Dr) Respondent By Shri Jitendra Jian (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 25 /01/2017

928/- from the transactions entered done through PMS, and thus nothing would be taxable on this account. 7. But, the AO rejected all the submissions of the assessee as well as judgments relied upon by the assessee by mentioning that facts involved in these cases were not identical to the case 5 Sachin R. Tendulkar of the assessee. He also

ITO 24(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. ENGINEERING EQUIPMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.65/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Income Tax Officer 24(1)(5), बनाम/ M/S Engineering Equipment, -31, Shree Laxmi Industrial Room No.523, Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (W), Parel, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400012. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaafe2008C

928/- by observing and holding as under: “5.5. The claim of deduction u/s 54EC is allowed on transfer of a long term capital asset and it is immaterial whether the corresponding gain is a short term capital gain by virtue of deeming fiction under section

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 50B came into the statute. Thus, even If the contention of learned AR is accepted that the transfer of net assets against allotment of equity or debt instruments of the other company would be a case of an "exchange" and not a "sale" the case would still be covered under the provisions of capital gains simpliscitor as ordained

ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 50B came into the statute. Thus, even If the contention of learned AR is accepted that the transfer of net assets against allotment of equity or debt instruments of the other company would be a case of an "exchange" and not a "sale" the case would still be covered under the provisions of capital gains simpliscitor as ordained

R.G. BULCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1180/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri R.G. Bulchandani, Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ A/21, Darshan Apartments, 1(3)(1) V. Mount Pleasant Road, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400006. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadpb0862E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

capital gains as against the addition of Rs.23,98,500/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) issued enhancement notice to the assessee . The assessee submitted in response to the enhancement notice issued by the learned CIT(A) that the total sale consideration was Rs. 72 lacs and the assessee’s share being

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital expenditure. Ld. CIT(A) justified the view taken by ld. Assessing Officer. 18. 2. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the time of issue of the security i.e., FCCB was in the nature of a bond and not an equity share. Accordingly, expenditure incurred should be allowed as revenue expenditure on the basis of factual

ITO 25(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. RENU GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Ito 25(2)(4) Renu Gupta C-11, R. No. 103, 110-C Lancelot ,S.V. Road, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092 Bandra Kurla Complex (E) Mumbai-400051 Pan No. Aacpg9852G Appellant .. Respondent

928/- on purchase and sale of shares. The short term capital gains is computed after deducting expenditure such as demat charges of Rs.12,615/-, STT of Rs.13,08,431/- and interest on borrowed funds of Rs.24,13,300/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) asked the assessee to explain as to why transactions in shares should not be treated as business activity

SYNCHEM CHEMICALS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

928/- u/s 115JB of the Act. We find that the assessee had claimed share from partnership firm as under:- Share of surplus on revaluation of investment of M/s Pranik Landmark Associates (PLA) 135,38,77,723 Share of loss from PLA (24,31,82,466) Share of profit from M/s Bharat Steel Fab. Engineering Works 51,88,277 Share

NATWAR LAL GALA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

capital gains to the beneficiary is not handled by one person but involves four elements being, the main operator, second operator, broker and account lenders and lastly, associated expenses like transfer charges and STT and estimated the commission income at the rate of 1.15 percent. The Ld.CIT(A) based on his own calculations after obtaining data from MCA regarding preferential

NATWAR LAL DAGA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

capital gains to the beneficiary is not handled by one person but involves four elements being, the main operator, second operator, broker and account lenders and lastly, associated expenses like transfer charges and STT and estimated the commission income at the rate of 1.15 percent. The Ld.CIT(A) based on his own calculations after obtaining data from MCA regarding preferential

NATWAR LAL GALA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

capital gains to the beneficiary is not handled by one person but involves four elements being, the main operator, second operator, broker and account lenders and lastly, associated expenses like transfer charges and STT and estimated the commission income at the rate of 1.15 percent. The Ld.CIT(A) based on his own calculations after obtaining data from MCA regarding preferential

NATWAR LAL DAGA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

capital gains to the beneficiary is not handled by one person but involves four elements being, the main operator, second operator, broker and account lenders and lastly, associated expenses like transfer charges and STT and estimated the commission income at the rate of 1.15 percent. The Ld.CIT(A) based on his own calculations after obtaining data from MCA regarding preferential

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, MUMBAI

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

Capital Gain’ and from ‘Other Sources’. The assessee filed his return of income for relevant assessment year on 23 July 2011 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,30,85,591/-. Return on income was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order was passed on 27th March 2014 under section 143(3). The assessing officer while passing assessment order made addition

ITO (INTL. TAX)-WARD-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. NIRMAL KOTECHA , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gain of Rs.52,14,98,464. During the assessment proceedings, the complete details of long-term capital gain were called upon. From the details submitted by the assessee, it was observed that such long-term capital gain was earned from the following 3 scrips: Sr. Name

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GORDHANBHAI GOVINDBHAI KAKADIYA , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit-23(1), Mumbai Vs Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Kakadiya Room No.511, 5Th Floor Bc-2010, G Block Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Agypk2399A Appellant Respondent

capital gain and claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Act amount to Rs.2,56,01,928/-. Further, related

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 14A(2) read with rule 8D(1) M/s. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd., of the Rules. Non-recording of such mandatory satisfaction on an objective basis with cogent reasons would make the entire addition illegal. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Maxoop Investments reported