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

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

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 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 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

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

MAHENDRA AKHALAL DEDHIA,MUMBAI vs. CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Cpc Mahendra Akhalal Dedhia Bengaluru A/301, Milind Bhavan Chs Ltd., Mg Road, Goregoan W Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Acupd5261E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Capital gain Exemption of Rs 1231137 on sale of gold and silver utensils was denied and added to total income and demand of Rs. 315,540/- was raised, rectification letter was filed on 4.03.2017 but again the exemption was not given in full and demand was raised for Rs.255,928 after giving credit for taxes paid

MEHER GHANSHYM LALWANI,SANTACRUZ WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, 24 (2) (5) , PIRAMAL CHAMBERS,MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

928/- was received from sale of 5000 shares of SCL. 3.1. The AO went on to examine the financials of SCL and its price movement. The AO came to know that a survey action was initiated on SCL and during the survey proceedings, statement of one of the directors of SCL was recorded

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

section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to other provisions, since fiction created by the \nlegislature has to be confined to the purpose to which it is created. Also, \nthat section 54E does not make any distinction between depreciable \nassets

DCIT - CC-6(4), MUMBAI vs. INDIABULLS REAL ESTATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

928. In its return of income, the assessee also offered the capital gains on the transfer of shares of its wholly-owned subsidiary, i.e. Shivalik Land Development Ltd, considering the full value of consideration at Rs.10 crore. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Vide assessment order dated 26/12/2011, passed under section

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

928/-. The DRP with regard to the other additions made by Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd. the AO sustained only those addition made towards accretion to capital reserve treated as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) to the extent of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- and the finance cost disallowed to the extent

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

gains of eligible business for the first five years and upto 30% for the remaining five years in the ten consecutive assessment years out of the fifteen years starting from the time the enterprise started its operation. The legislature having ousted applicability of sub-section (1) and (2) in the opening sentence brought in for the purposes of time line

SIDDHARTH BHASKER SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 27, MUMBAI ( NAVI MUMBAI)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 2169/MUM/2025\nAssessment Year: 2021-22\nSiddharth Bhasker Shah\n803 Indraprastha Neelkanth valley,\nRajwadi, Gghatkopar east,\nMumbai - 400077\n(PAN: BIGPS6015Q)\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nPrinciple Commissioner of\nIncome Tax- 27,\nNavi Mumbai\n(Respondent)\nPresent for:\nAssessee\nRevenue\n: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CA\n: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR\nDate of Hearing\n: 07.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\

Section 54F was available to the Assessee and hence the directions of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax were on account of change of opinion.\n4. The Appellant prays that, the Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act dated 27.03.2025 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax be annulled, squashed and set aside. 5. The aforesaid Grounds of Appeal are independent

TOLANI SHIPPING CO.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Ld.Transfer Pricing Officer after obtaining the prior approval of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai. 3.1. The international transactions carried out by the assessee are as under:- S.No. Nature of transaction Value in Rs. Most Appropriate Method 1. Receipts for technical manage- ment services provided Rs.1,19,68,923/- Cost Plus

TOLANI SHIPPING CO.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Ld.Transfer Pricing Officer after obtaining the prior approval of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai. 3.1. The international transactions carried out by the assessee are as under:- S.No. Nature of transaction Value in Rs. Most Appropriate Method 1. Receipts for technical manage- ment services provided Rs.1,19,68,923/- Cost Plus

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

gain computed by the assessee, as \ntabulated above, is thus, accepted and ground raised by the assessee \non this issue is allowed. \n\nXV. Additional claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent \nsuo moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment \nproceedings. \n\n23. This issue arises in the appeal filed by Revenue for Assessment \nYear