DCIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S WALL STREET FINANCE LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal and we hear the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of Consultancy Services and Forex Dealers. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from business and profession, income from long term capital gain

DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 5. We find that the Revenue had raised only one ground before us challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of set off of long term capital gain

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

term capital gain by the Assessing Officer and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961" (ii) "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69B of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 1,89,97,538/- ignoring the fact

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

long term capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

long term capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

long term capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

long term capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

long term capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

long term capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

long term capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

long term capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

long term capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities

RAMESH J. THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 823/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Ramesh J. Thakkar 26(3)(6) Mumbai 51, Moti Sagar,3Rd Road बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, Ganesh Gawde Road, Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mulund(W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 400080 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabpt4367L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Mehul Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Neeta Jeph सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3), For The Ay 2012-13. 2

condonation of delay. Accordingly, the Appeal of the Assessee in filing of the Appeal is condom as it falls within the same period. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel had only argued the appeal on merits, that is, addition of Rs. 4,53,849/- on account of sale of shares claimed as long term capital gain

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

terms under which ‘Shares were sold/transferred by the appellant which made the consideration liable to be taxed as business income as against capital gains claimed by the appellant. In this case there was prior , scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) dated 31.3.2013. perusal of the assessment order shows that none of these facts were verified or examined nor was any view

ANIRUDH K DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

delay in filing the appeals for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2007-08 is hereby condoned and the matter is being disposed of on merits. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from the appeal ITA No.5023/M/2011 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The sole issue raised in this appeal is as to whether the income earned

ANIRUDH K. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

delay in filing the appeals for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2007-08 is hereby condoned and the matter is being disposed of on merits. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from the appeal ITA No.5023/M/2011 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The sole issue raised in this appeal is as to whether the income earned

ANIRUDH K DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

delay in filing the appeals for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2007-08 is hereby condoned and the matter is being disposed of on merits. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from the appeal ITA No.5023/M/2011 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The sole issue raised in this appeal is as to whether the income earned

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

long-term capital gain), hence for the sake of brevity, we are inclined to decide the present litigations on the basis of additions/issues individually.\n\n7. Coming to the 1st issue/addition of Rs.6,81,11,103/-, we observe that the Assessee, in his books of accounts for the AY under consideration, has shown an amount of Rs.6