SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital in nature after completion of project when revenue had already been recognized from the project?” 2. The assessee before us also filed additional ground which reads as under: “Additional Ground No. III: Allowability of maintenance expenses of Rs. 92.32.199/- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the maintenance expenditure

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital in\nnature after completion of project when revenue had already been recognized\nfrom the project?\"\nThe assessee before us also filed additional ground which reads as under:\nAdditional Ground No. III: Allowability of maintenance expenses of Rs.\n92.32.199/-\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the maintenance\nexpenditure

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital would constitute\ntransfer and any profit or gain arising from the transfer of\ncapital asset is liable to be taxed u/s.45. In the above\nmentioned case 90 non-cumulative preference shares, of the\nface value of Rs. 1000/-, were purchased at a price

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

transferred as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 of acquisition should be allowed up to the year of acquisition

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

transferred as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 of acquisition should be allowed up to the year of acquisition

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

transferred as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 of acquisition should be allowed up to the year of acquisition

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

transferred as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost as against the claim of Revenue that indexation of cost M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 of acquisition should be allowed up to the year of acquisition

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

gain to beneficiaries and providing short-term capital loss to exit providers. The report sent by the investigation capital loss to exit providers. The report sent by the investigation capital loss to exit providers. The report sent by the investigation wing has referred to inquiries conducted on various operators who referred to inquiries conducted on various operators who referred

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NARENDRA GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

Capital Gains in respect of sale of property being Flat No. C-3501 whereas the loan disbursal document states that the 3501 whereas the loan disbursal document states that the 3501 whereas the loan disbursal document states that the loan was sanctioned for Flat No. C loan was sanctioned for Flat No. C-2901. In this regard, 2901. In this

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

gains' shall be computed by deducting from the 'full value of consideration received or accrued' as a result of the transfer, the cost of acquisition of the asset and the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer. The expression "full value of consideration" used in Sec. 48 cannot be construed as the 'market value' of the asset on the date

MATRIX PARTNERS INDIA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

transfer of equity shares during the relevant previous year, and treat them separately, i.e., claiming gains as exempt under the DTAA and claiming losses to be carried forward under the provisions of the Act.” 4. On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed the impugned assessment order by reducing the Long-term capital loss against the long term capital

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

transferred to the assessee,\nwithout appreciating the legal position u/s. 54 of \"the act\" as held\nby the various courts that what is important is \"Purchase\" of and\n\"utilization\" of capital gain for payment of purchase price

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

price of shares of SPLASH\nMEDIA by a group of persons acting as\na syndicate in order to provide entries\nof tax exempt long term capital gains to\nthe assessee (beneficiary). According to\nthe information available, the assessee\nhad traded in the above scrip to the\ntune of Rs.2374500/- during the\nfinancial year 2010-11 and bogus\nLTCG amounting

SHRI ANIL MURARILAL AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 18(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Murarilal Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward-18(1)(1) 703, Purna Worli Chsl Mumbai. Vs. Pochkhanwala Road, Worli Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaapa 9215 B Appellant Respondent

transfer of rights is void on the alleged plea that the assesse has violated terms and condition of alleged plea that the assesse has violated terms and condition of alleged plea that the assesse has violated terms and condition of SRA scheme without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not SRA scheme without appreciating th e fact that

INDIUM IV (MAURITIUS) HOLDINGS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “TPO”) u/s 92CA of the Act for determination of Arm's Length Price in relation to the international transaction. 4. Assessing Officer observed from the Computation of total income, that under the head “Capital Gains

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

price quoted on a recognised stock exchange, either on that date or on the date of transfer, whichever was lower. This presupposed that the shares were listed on one or both dates. For the sake of ready reference, relevant extract of Hon‟ble Finance Minister‟s Budget 2018 Speech is reproduced hereunder:- “155. Madam Speaker, currently long term capital gains

MR. MEHUL HARISH NISAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE20(2),, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Mehul Nisar, Acit-Circle-20(2), Amrut Tower, 247, Telang Road, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Matunga, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aadpn 9622 Q Appellant Respondent

capital gain. The Assessing . The Assessing Officer further reduced ½ of the claim of the Officer further reduced ½ of the claim of the brokerage amounting brokerage amounting to Rs.7 crores on the grounds that the brokerage pertains to the to Rs.7 crores on the grounds that the brokerage pertain to Rs.7 crores on the grounds that the brokerage pertain entire property

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

CAPITAL GAIN TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(38) ARE AS UNDER: 5 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. The assessee is a regular investor in share market since many years. The assessee was not involved into buying of Yamini Investments Company Limited. The flow of transaction was as follows: 1. The Assesseewas alloted20,000 Equity

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

transfer of long term capital asset. 016. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned lower authorities. He submitted that if the assessee has earned short term capital gain on sale of property which is chargeable to tax as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the assessee