PRAVEEN SITARAM AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-24(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

long‑term capital gains earned from the sale of listed equity shares of M/s. Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd., which had been claimed as exempt under section 10(38). The assessee has also assailed the validity of the notice issued under section 148, contending that the reassessment

ANAND MELLARAM ISSRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

reassessment under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income through Long-Term Capital Gain

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

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

long term capital\ngains in the original assessment\norder and short term capital gains in\nthe reassessment order.\n16. In view

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

long-term capital gains. It is pertinent to note that assessee has been holding the share from September 2012 onwards and the price of the very same scrip in the open market in October 2014 was ranging from Rs. 452 to 496 per share. Considering the drastic fall in the said scrip, the assessee had chosen to sell

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

long term capital gain.\n\nIt was held by the High Court that on the basis of the documents produced by the assesse in appeal. The commissioner [appeals], recorded a finding of fact that there was a genuine transaction of purchase of share by the assesse on 16/03/2001 and sale thereof on 21/03/2002. The transactions of sale and purchase were

DCIT (IT) - 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO INSTITUTIONEEL EMERGING MARKETS FONDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

Long term term term capital capital capital gain gain gain of of of Rs.13,10,67,006/ .13,10,67,006/- which is claimed as exempt u/s.10(38) of the IT which is claimed as exempt u/s.10(38) of the IT Act. Further, the assessee has claimed brought forward short Act. Further, the assessee has claimed brought forward short

DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO QI INSTITUTIONAL EMERGING MARKETS ENHANCED INDEX EQUITIES FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

Long term term term capital capital capital gain gain gain of of of Rs.13,10,67,006/ .13,10,67,006/- which is claimed as exempt u/s.10(38) of the IT which is claimed as exempt u/s.10(38) of the IT Act. Further, the assessee has claimed brought forward short Act. Further, the assessee has claimed brought forward short

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

long term capital gains on sale of shares as not genuine. Further the A.O. has not made any enquiry or independent investigation. The fact remains that the assessee is a regular investor in shares and has submitted the requisite details in respect of purchase and sale of shares and were not disproved. The transaction of sale of shares is through

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

reassessment order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 29/12/2017 passed by The Income Tax Officer, Ward 15 (1) (1), Mumbai [ The Ld. AO ] ,was dismissed. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is that long-term capital gain

ANJU CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long-term capital gain on transfer of shares, which was based on generic findings of investigation wing, without there being any specific finding against the bonafide investment and sale by the appellant through online platform of recognized stock exchange through the SEBI registered stock broker. 5. On the facts and the circumstances of the case

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

long term capital gain u/s 10(38) without considering the written submission. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition on account of penny stock. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 69C by way of 3% commission on sale proceeds of shares on the basis of assumption without considering the written submission. 5. The appellant

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

Reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act are bad in law as the due process of law is riot followed.\" The assessee's case was reopened under section 148 of the Act due to earning of capital gain amount of Rs.2,54,98,050/- during the impugned assessment year. After the verification, the addition was confirmed under section

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

long-term capital gain, term capital gain, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the escaped assessment and issued notice under

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh