DCIT -4(1), MUMBAI vs. FOUR DIMENSION SECURITIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

disallowance on account of loss on purchase and sale of mutual funds unit at Rs.92,94,104/- invoking section 94(7

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

disallowance on account of loss on purchase and sale of mutual funds unit at Rs.92,94,104/- invoking section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI , MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands\ndismissed

disallowed.\n6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non\ngenuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if\nthe holding period is not covered by section 94(7

ANGEL BROKING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.5433/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Angle Broking P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cen Cir.7(3), Mumbai G-1, Akruti Trade Centre, Rood Room No.640, Aaykarbhavan, M.K. No.7, Midc, Andheri(East), Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 093. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6094 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shriadityamaheswari, Ar Respondent By :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjunlalsaini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-9, Mumbai, In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 9/Cir-4(1)/284/2015-16, Dated, 24.06.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penaltyorder Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.03.2015. 2.The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Is That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Was Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.4,03,895/-. 3.The Brief Facts Apropos This Issue Are That While Completing Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Ao Made Disallowance Of Rs.11,88,275/- U/S 94(7) Of The Act & Also Made Disallowance Of Speculation Loss Of Rs.27,62,83,681/- . In Pursuance Of The Disallowance Made By The Ao In His

section 94(7) on these transactions. Moreover, though there are disallowances in the course of the assessment proceedings, mere disallowance

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

94,18,763, under section 14A of the Act r/w rule 8D of the Rules. 21. The DRP vide directions dated 30-9-2019, inter-alia, rejected the objections filed by the assessee. The DRP, however, directed the Assessing Officer to allow suo- motu disallowance of Rs. 46,77,100, made by the assessee under section

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

7,50,568/- claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income for the reason that the said expenditure pertain to earlier AY. The ld. AR in this regard submitted that the lower authorities have not questioned the genuineness of the expenditure and that the same is incurred for the purpose of business and that only reason for denial

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

7,50,568/- claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income for the reason that the said expenditure pertain to earlier AY. The ld. AR in this regard submitted that the lower authorities have not questioned the genuineness of the expenditure and that the same is incurred for the purpose of business and that only reason for denial

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

7,50,568/- claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income for the reason that the said expenditure pertain to earlier AY. The ld. AR in this regard submitted that the lower authorities have not questioned the genuineness of the expenditure and that the same is incurred for the purpose of business and that only reason for denial

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. DIBYA TRADING CO LLP, MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Dibya Trading Co. Llp

section 94(7) of the Act are not applicable. Therefore, it is not open to disallow the short term capital

ALASKA MERCANTILE CO, PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.9(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sanjay Garg (Jm)

94(7) of the Act as the same is statutory disallowance and further there was no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly he contended that the impugned penalty is not sustainable. 7. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee is required to make disallowance under provisions of section

RAJESH BEGUR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 94(7) of the Act and is to be disallowed. Accordingly, the same was disallowed by the assessee himself