VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

29A) M/s. Vama Pvt. Ltd., • Computation of Total Income • Audit Report  P&L A/c. and Balance Sheet  Return of Income  Order u/s. 154 + Refund Order (iv) Thus, it can be seen from the above that the Appellant has correctly and duly filed his return of income for AY 1999-2000, which was duly assessed to tax u/s. 143(1) dated

VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

29A) M/s. Vama Pvt. Ltd., • Computation of Total Income • Audit Report  P&L A/c. and Balance Sheet  Return of Income  Order u/s. 154 + Refund Order (iv) Thus, it can be seen from the above that the Appellant has correctly and duly filed his return of income for AY 1999-2000, which was duly assessed to tax u/s. 143(1) dated

VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

29A) M/s. Vama Pvt. Ltd., • Computation of Total Income • Audit Report  P&L A/c. and Balance Sheet  Return of Income  Order u/s. 154 + Refund Order (iv) Thus, it can be seen from the above that the Appellant has correctly and duly filed his return of income for AY 1999-2000, which was duly assessed to tax u/s. 143(1) dated

VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

29A) M/s. Vama Pvt. Ltd., • Computation of Total Income • Audit Report  P&L A/c. and Balance Sheet  Return of Income  Order u/s. 154 + Refund Order (iv) Thus, it can be seen from the above that the Appellant has correctly and duly filed his return of income for AY 1999-2000, which was duly assessed to tax u/s. 143(1) dated

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

house by an order of a competent Court, which they could not have violated. 11. Ld. AR further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul vs. CIT, Chandigarh (ITA No. 89 of 1999) dated 17.01.2014, the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nirmal

ACIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI vs. DATTANI DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5075/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Acit – 25(3), M/S Dattani Development, बनाम/ C-11, R. No. 308, 100, Shreeji Darshan, V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, 1St Floor, S.V. Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Kandivali (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 067. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabfd4969Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

houses for dishoused , roads as well for residential purposes. The assessee had also not undertaken any development or construction of the building on the said land since it acquired interest and title in the land in the year 1994 till the date of sale by the assessee. No approval was even taken by the assessee from the Government for development

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

House property | | 22,40,000 |\n| 2. | Income from Capital Gains | |\n| | a) Long Term Capital Gains | | 2,76,29,385 |\n| | (On sale of property) | |\n| | b) Short Term Capital Gain u/s 111A | 3,798 | 2,76,33,183 |\n| 3. | Income from Other Sources | | 36,21,473 |\n| 4. | Gross Total Income

TINA KAPOOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ms. Tina Kapoor Ito-26(2)(1) Flat No. 4, Sanghi House, 94, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Nepean Sea Road, Road Mumbai-400006 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aelpk9444F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

sections 2(29A) & 2(42A), the period of holding is to be reckoned from the date of possession. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that during year under consideration, the appellant had sold two house properties

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 the assessee‟s claim holding that the possession of the flat was given to the assessee on 15-5-1986 and, therefore, the capital gain on sale of the flat in question

MAHENDRA KUMAR M.JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mahendra Kumar M. Acit-18(2) Erstwhile Jain 1, Lawyers Chambers, Vs. Acit-14(3), Mumbai. Fr. Floor, Picket Rd, Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aacpj5382N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mani Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

29A) comes into play. As per section 2(42A), the assessee is only Shri Mahendra Kumar M. Jain 7 required to hold the capital asset and not required to become owner or acquire possession of the capital asset. It is stated by him that such holding of a capital asset does not require the asset to be actually transferred

VIJAY RANGROO,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

29A) long-term capital asset is one which is not a short-term capital asset. According to section 2(42A) short-term capital asset at the relevant time meant, a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than thirty-six months immediately preceding the date of its transfer. A conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions leads to one conclusion

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 the assessee‟s claim holding that the possession of the flat was given to the assessee on 15-5- 1986 and, therefore, the capital gain on sale of the flat in question

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

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

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such assets was squarely covered by the provisions

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

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

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such assets was squarely covered by the provisions

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

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

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such assets was squarely covered by the provisions

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

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

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such assets was squarely covered by the provisions

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

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

29A) which defines ‗Long term Capital Asset‘ and Section 2(42A) which defines ‗Short Term Capital Asset‘ the period of holding of the properties in question before they were sold was more than 36 months as is evident from the above-mentioned chart and accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such assets was squarely covered by the provisions

SANJAY V. JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Housing on 24/02/2011, of purchase of Flat No.1405 in Lake Primerose for Rs. 85,76,500. Further, vide agreement dated 11/03/2011, assessee along with Mr. Virajlal Jhaveri and Mr. Ashutosh Jhaveri, sold the said property for Rs. 1,25,00,000. Since the property was not held by the assessee for more than 36 months, therefore, the assessee was asked