ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

term\ncapital gains which is exempt from Income\n==End of OCR for page 28== into white through the route of\nlottery winnings ete by stating that\n\"In this context it would be relevant\nto mention that in order to give\neffect to the recommendations of\nthe Direct Taxes Enquiry\nCommittee funder the\nChairmanship of Justice K.N,\nWanchoo, retired

SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act are initiated separately for all the issues of addition discussed above for underreporting of income.” (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, the Assessing Officer held that STCG (Non STT Paid) amounting to INR.1,92,80,432/- was taxable at the rate of 30% under Section 115AD of the Act and the STCG (STT Paid) of INR.5

ITO -24(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA, HUF, MUMBAI

long term capital gain of Rs.\n51,74,772/- which is 24 times the increase in cost price in less than 2 years\nand such huge rise in share price is not holding to any commercial principles\nand market factors. The Ld. AO, at page No. 30, para (e) has noted that the\nassessee has not been able to prove

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

long term capital gains for the beneficiary. The assessee has converted his undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2014-2015. Hence the entire amount of Rs. 8,41,04,109/- purported to have been received by the assessee on sale of 97000 shares of Blazon Marble Ltd & 1000000 shares

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initi u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. with a view to concealment of income.” 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee challenged validity of the challenged validity

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

long term capital gain earned by him is genuine one. C. Further, reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd. {2012 24 Taxmann 276 Delhi, wherein it was held that addition u/s 68 id inevitable on unearthing of sham transactions. No further evidence needed to prove their sources

VINEEET MITTAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 3(3) , MUMBAI

Accordingly, this appeal is\nalso allowed

long term capital gain is not allowable.\nf. Failure of Assessee to discharge his onus: The assessee has not\nbeen able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be\nnatural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such\nshare transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly\nstructured one.\ng. Ignorance of the assessee

VINEET MITTAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT . CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, this appeal is\nalso allowed

long term capital gain is not allowable.\nf. Failure of Assessee to discharge his onus: The assessee has not\nbeen able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be\nnatural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such\nshare transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly\nstructured one.\ng. Ignorance of the assessee

VINAY PARMANAND HARIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT), WARD-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Kempinski Private Residences Room No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Unit 40F Dki Jakarta, 10310 India Building, Nariman Point, Indonesia. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabph 4179 A Appellant Respondent

Long term capital gain from PGIM India Global Equity Opportunities fund and PGIM India Hybrid Fixed Global Equity Opportunities fund and PGIM India Hybrid Fixed Global Equity Opportunities fund and PGIM India Hybrid Fixed Term Term Term Fund. Fund. Fund. The The The assessee assessee assessee has has has earned earned earned Rs.3,22,299/-from Rs.3,22,299/ Rs.3

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. The issue arising in grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section

SHRI YOGESH P. THAKKAR,PANVEL vs. THE DCIT , CC-3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

long term capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act and estimated commission @ 6% against the same. Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. The Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which would be consequential in nature and does

SMT. HARSH A NITIN THAKKAR,RAIGAD vs. THE DCIT CENT. CIR -3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

long term capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act and estimated commission @ 6% against the same. Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. The Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which would be consequential in nature and does

DINESHCHANDRA D. CHHAJED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

long term capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act and estimated commission @ 6% against the same. Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. The Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which would be consequential in nature and does

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CENT.CIR-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

long term capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act and estimated commission @ 6% against the same. Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. The Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which would be consequential in nature and does

NISHA YOGESH THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

long term capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act and estimated commission @ 6% against the same. Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. The Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which would be consequential in nature and does