SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

long term capital gain or short term capital gain. We are of the considered opinion that assessee got his right over the capital asset on the date of allotment of letter in respect of flats booked by the assessee. Therefore, the subsequent action of registration of sale agreement is merely an assignment of rights in the property of the assessee

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

long term capital gain or short term capital gain. We are of the considered opinion that assessee got his right over the capital asset on the date of allotment of letter in respect of flats booked by the assessee. Therefore, the subsequent action of registration of sale agreement is merely an assignment of rights in the property of the assessee

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

long term capital gains. It is noted by us that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay ITAT in the case of Jamsetji Tata Trust (supra), relevant observations of the bench which are directly applicable on the issue before us, are reproduced herein for ready reference: "13.5 Having considered the rival submissions as well

ACIT-17(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

long term capital gains. It is noted by us that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay ITAT in the case of Jamsetji Tata Trust (supra), relevant observations of the bench which are directly applicable on the issue before us, are reproduced herein for ready reference: "13.5 Having considered the rival submissions as well

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

long term capital gains. It is noted by us that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay ITAT in the case of Jamsetji Tata Trust (supra), relevant observations of the bench which are directly applicable on the issue before us, are reproduced herein for ready reference: “13.5 Having considered the rival submissions as well

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

charitable trust. 9. Ground No.2 is regarding denial of exemption u/s 10(34), 10(35) and 10(38). 9.1 The assessee claimed that dividend income on shares and unit and long term capital gain

VIPASSANA RESEARCH INSTITUTE,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 2(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathavipassana Research Institute Vs. Ito(Exemptions)-2(4) 2Nd Floor, Green House Piramal Chambers Green Street, Fort Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No.Aaatv1217E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

long term capital gain derived from sale of units of mutual funds and corpus donation from gross income and arrived at net income from property held under trust Rs. 1,85,63,548/-. As against this, the assessee has claimed amount 9 Vipassana Research Institute applied for charitable

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

Capital Gain, which was resisted by the assessee therein. The claim of the Revenue, based on Section 50 of the Act, was negatived by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the assessee- firm had not obtained depreciation after the asset became property of the newly constituted firm, which was the assessee therein. Applying the same 22 Techno

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

charitable trust. 9. Ground No.2 is regarding denial of exemption u/s 10(34), 10(35) and 10(38). 9.1 The assessee claimed that dividend income on shares and unit and long term capital gain

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

charitable trusts. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Synthetic Ltd. has not laid down a law that double deduction is not permissible. It only stated that the same should be expressly provided for under the Act. In the present case, admittedly Section 32 of the Act provides for allowance of depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

long-term capital asset, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

long as the Account Bank is not notified of an Even of Default by the Lender Agents, the Account Bank shall invest in Authorised Investments on the instructions of the Borrower, as provided in this Agreement from such part of the amounts standing to the credit of any of the Retention Accounts, in each case with respect to those amounts

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

long term capital gain on sale of shares an exempt u/s 10(34) 10(35) and 10(38) respectively and cannot be brought to tax by applying section 11 and 13 of the Act.” 10. Respectfully following the above said decisions, we are in agreement that the income earned by the assessee u/s. 10 of the Act are income based

SANGEETA JAGDISH KENY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2009-10

long term capital gain of Rs.18,36,213/- and the assessing officer raised a demand of Rs.7,82,048/-. (4) That subsequently, I filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and also made an application for rectification u/s. 154 vide my letter dated 24-01-2012. During the course of the hearing before CIT (Appeals) I did not have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

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

long term capital gain of Rs.578,63,38,544/-. The assessee had stated that it was holding the shares of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., which was received by it as corpus donation. During the year under consideration, the assessee trust had sold these shares and re-invested the amount in preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. During the year

NANDALAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) - II (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Nandlal Tolani Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Charitable Trust Tax (Exem.)Ii(2), Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar R.P.Goenka Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaatn0043Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

term "Total Income" and if the Trust is "business undertaking" then the same has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act and similarly when the Trust is having "Income from Property" the same has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the purpose of arriving at "Total Income" u/s.2

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

long of the total income, would not enter the computation process determine the quantum of income under the relevant head of each of which has its own computation provisions. To the same effect and purport are its observationsin the case of LKP Securities Ltd. (in ITA Nos. 638 & W93/Mum/2012 daleri 17.05.2013): '14 The income (and loss, which is only negative

ITO WD 19(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE ARMY NAVY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4067/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Ito Ward-19(3)(3), Mumbai Vs. M/S Milestone Army Navy Trust, 602, Hallmark Business Plaza, Sant Nyaneshwar Marg, Opp. Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-51 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aactm 0102 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Chandra Vijay ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 28-3-2014, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Wherein The Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Revenue :- (1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Of The Assessee Is Taxable In The Hands Of Contributors & Not In The Hands Of The Aop. (2) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Activities Of The Assessee Are Not Commercial In Nature Even Though The Assessee Has Not Carried Out Any Activity In The Spirit Of Trust. (3) The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.‖

long as the trust deed gives the details of the beneficiaries and the description of the person who is to be benefited, the beneficiaries cannot be said to be uncertain. CBDT Circular No.281 dated 22.9.1980 wherein the CBDT has explained the scope of Sec.164 with regard to stating the name of the beneficiaries in the trust deed. In the said