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

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

JAGMEET SINGH SABHARWAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX

29A) of the Act. Further, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention that the capital gain arising out of the transaction is LTCG not STCG wherein he has relied on the date of purchase agreement dated 30.12.2011. He has stated that assessee has not submitted any letter of allotment. It is reiterated that the assessee had submitted letter of allotment

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

property of any kind has passed to the assessee in respect of development of the infrastructure facility. It means that the assessee has not fulfilled the requirements as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court to get deduction u/s 80 IA. The essential components are completely missing in the agreements on which basis the enterprise can be eligible for deduction

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

property of any kind has passed to the assessee in respect of development of the infrastructure facility. It means that the assessee has not fulfilled the requirements as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court to get deduction u/s 80 IA. The essential components are completely missing in the agreements on which basis the enterprise can be eligible for deduction