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

disallowed, as, such capital gain is in the nature of short term capital gain under section 50 of the Act. In reply, the assessee submitted that the assets / buildings transferred during the year were held for more than 36 months and, therefore, qualify as long term capital assets within the meaning of section 2(29A

MONSANTO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

29A) of the Act, long term capital asset means a capital asset which is not a ‘short term capital asset. Section 2(42A) of the Act further defines ‘short term capital asset as a capital asset held for not more than 36 months immediately preceding the date of transfer. Therefore, the incidence of tax on transfer of a capital asset

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MONSANTO INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

29A) of the Act, long term capital asset means a capital asset which is not a ‘short term capital asset. Section 2(42A) of the Act further defines ‘short term capital asset as a capital asset held for not more than 36 months immediately preceding the date of transfer. Therefore, the incidence of tax on transfer of a capital asset

ITO 20(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LEGAL HEIRS OF SHRI DURGAPRASAD AGNIHOTRI, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am

disallowance of exemption u/s 54EC made by the A.O. and the ground raised by the appellant is allowed.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5.1 Before us, the learned Departmental Representative argued that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee

PRASAD SIDDHARTH THORAT,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2019-20

disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed under Section 80GGC despite: 2 Prasad Siddharth Thorat., Mumbai. Donation being made by account payee banking channel, Political party being duly registered under Section 29A

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

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

disallowance is a delay in filing Form 10-IC. Since section 115BAA of the Act makes it mandatory to file the form 10-IC within the date specified, absence of that indicates that it is simply a case wherein the 11 Getinge Medical India Private Limited claim under section 115BAA has not even been made as per the procedure given

VIJAY RAAZ ,GODBUNDAR ROAD, DIST. THANE vs. WARD 16(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijay Raaz Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai Cottage No. B-13, Cosmos Hawaiian, Near Blue Roof Club, Ghodbunder Vs. Road, Thane, West 400 601. Pan/Gir No. Adlpr8784L (Appellant) (Respondent) :

29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951against the proof submitted by the assessee of official gazette of Election Commission of India confirming that the party is registered unrecognised party Judicial Precedents Ignored: 10. The Learned PCIT failed to consider judicial precedents wherein courts have held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT has a different

FAKHRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.USTEE COMPANY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR FCCB ISSUED BY JINDAL SAW LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryfakhri Co-Operative Versus Commissioner Of Housing Society Ltd. Income Tax 422, Matharpakhadi Road, (Appeals) Mazgaon, Nfac, Delhi. Maharashtra-400010. Pan: Aaaaf1078N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Murtaza Quresh Ghandiali & Ms. Sabeena Darukhanawal, Ar Respondent/Department By : Ms. Mini Vinod, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2023 Order Narender Kumar Choudhry, J.M: This Assessee/Appellant Herein Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.01.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / Nfac, Delhi {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2013-14. Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. In This Case, The Appellant Earned Interest From Co- Operative & Other Banks & Therefore, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 On 22.08.2013 Which Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Dated 12.11.2014 Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Amounts Of Rs. 2,08,071/- & Rs. 50,000/- Have Not Been Considered Under Section 80P(2)(C)(Ii) & Consequently Disallowed.

disallowed. 3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant on dated 21.11.2014 filed rectification request to the CPC. The CPC vide rectification order dated 08.01.2015 under section 154 of the Act, gave an option to the appellant to file an online rectification request. Subsequently in response/compliance said order dated 08.01.2015, the Appellant filed its response dated 12.02.2019. Thereafter the Appellant also lodged

NISHA SUMAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Nisha Suman Jain, The Dcit 24(2), Yash Trading Co., Gr. Floor, C-13, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Jain Estate, Jakharia Road, Bkc, Bandra (E), Malad (W), Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Abppj3004M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2019

Section 2(29A) r.w.s. 242A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without appreciating/considering the CBDT Circular No. 471 dated 15th October, 1986. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the disallowance

RAVI JAKHAR,MUMBAI vs. ASS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 35(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under section 54F of the Act made by the Ld. Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 2,16,47,059. 2.2. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to allow deduction under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,16,47,059. 3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

VISHNULAXMI SILK MILLS,ANDHERI EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(6) MUMBAI, LALBAUG

In the result, this ground of appeal is also allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physicalhearing) Vishnulaxmi Silk Mills, Income Tax Officer Building No.-6 29A, Mittal Industrial Vs Ward 23(3)(6), Piramal Chamber, Estate, Andheri, Kurla Road, Lal-Baug, Mumbai- 400012. Andheri (East), J.B. Nagar S.O, Mumbai- 400059. [Pan: Aaafv3106C]

29A, Mittal Industrial Vs Ward 23(3)(6), Piramal Chamber, Estate, Andheri, Kurla Road, Lal-Baug, Mumbai- 400012. Andheri (East), J.B. Nagar S.O, Mumbai- 400059. [PAN: AAAFV3106C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CA Revenue by Shri Harshad M. Karnik- Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.04.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income

SEETA PRABHU,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D.Jainसर्वश्री ए.डी. जैन, न्याययक सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1020/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08) बनाम/ Mrs.Seeta Prabhu, Income Tax Officer-26(1)4, C/O Mohanlal Jain & Co., Smt.K.G.Mittal Ayurvedik Vs. Chartered Accounts Firm, Hospital Building, 10, Chartered House, Charni Road, Ground Floor, Dr.C H Street, Mumbai-400002 Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

29A) and as he had purchased another flat on 31-1- 1989, such capital gain was to be set off under section 54. The Assessing Officer disallowed

SNEHA BIMAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 19, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

29A) and as he had purchased another flat on 31-1-1989, such capital gain was to be set off under section 54. The Assessing Officer disallowed

DCIT CC 8(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowances made. Thus, for the reason given by us in ITA No. 2300/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2015- 16 , the present appeal ITA No. 2301/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 , order of the ld CIT (A) is confirmed and appeal of the ld AO is dismissed. ITA Nos. 2004 & 2005/MUM/2021 For A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 By Assessee

AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR -8(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowances made. Thus, for the reason given by us in ITA No. 2300/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2015- 16 , the present appeal ITA No. 2301/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 , order of the ld CIT (A) is confirmed and appeal of the ld AO is dismissed. ITA Nos. 2004 & 2005/MUM/2021 For A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 By Assessee

DCIT C.C. 8(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowances made. Thus, for the reason given by us in ITA No. 2300/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2015- 16 , the present appeal ITA No. 2301/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 , order of the ld CIT (A) is confirmed and appeal of the ld AO is dismissed. ITA Nos. 2004 & 2005/MUM/2021 For A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 By Assessee

DCIT CC 8(4) ., MUMBAI vs. M/S. AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowances made. Thus, for the reason given by us in ITA No. 2300/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2015- 16 , the present appeal ITA No. 2301/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 , order of the ld CIT (A) is confirmed and appeal of the ld AO is dismissed. ITA Nos. 2004 & 2005/MUM/2021 For A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 By Assessee

AURUM PLATZ PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR-8(40, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowances made. Thus, for the reason given by us in ITA No. 2300/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2015- 16 , the present appeal ITA No. 2301/MUM/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 , order of the ld CIT (A) is confirmed and appeal of the ld AO is dismissed. ITA Nos. 2004 & 2005/MUM/2021 For A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 By Assessee