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

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

short term capital gains in\nthe reassessment order.\n16. In view of the above, the Ld.CIT(A)\nwas justified in deleting

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

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

short \"LTCG\"), however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in Investigation Wing Report, addition made by Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted.\n\nIn the light of the above, and considering the submission made by the appellant and taking into account

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

short-term capital gains earned during A.Y.2016 capital gains earned during A.Y.2016-17. The AO has rejected case 17. The AO has rejected case laws submitted by the assessee and he has allowed total loss of laws submitted by the assessee and he has allowed total loss of laws submitted by the assessee and he has allowed total loss of Rs.41

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

short-term capital gains earned during A.Y.2016 capital gains earned during A.Y.2016-17. The AO has rejected case 17. The AO has rejected case laws submitted by the assessee and he has allowed total loss of laws submitted by the assessee and he has allowed total loss of laws submitted by the assessee and he has allowed total loss of Rs.41

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

Short Term Capital Gains\". As the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed income, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.\n(Addition - Rs.10,42,97,083/-)\"\n(Copy of Report as produced by the parties before us and reproduced by the AO in the Assessment order is not clearly legible and therefore the same

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

short-term capital gain. The shares of Surabhi investment and chemicals Ltd were also found as one of the penny stocks mentioned in the investigation report which did not have adequate financial strength, but price of the share have increased in disproportionate manner. Such increase in price of the shares was considered to be manipulation by the accommodation entry provider

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

short the Act) for reassessment under the provisions of section 147 of the A ovisions of section 147 of the Act. 2.1 During reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked During reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked During reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify sale consideration of ₹2,30,01, the assessee to justify sale consideration

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

reassessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed an exemption of long-term capital gains of Rs.8,18,51,632, on the sale of shares of Comfort Intech Ltd and Splash Media under section 10(38) of the Act. Since the quantum of huge long-term capital gains was found suspicious, the assessee was asked to show cause

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

reassessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed an exemption of long-term capital gains of Rs.8,18,51,632, on the sale of shares of Comfort Intech Ltd and Splash Media under section 10(38) of the Act. Since the quantum of huge long-term capital gains was found suspicious, the assessee was asked to show cause

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

reassessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed an exemption of long-term capital gains of Rs.8,18,51,632, on the sale of shares of Comfort Intech Ltd and Splash Media under section 10(38) of the Act. Since the quantum of huge long-term capital gains was found suspicious, the assessee was asked to show cause

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

reassessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed an exemption of long-term capital gains of Rs.8,18,51,632, on the sale of shares of Comfort Intech Ltd and Splash Media under section 10(38) of the Act. Since the quantum of huge long-term capital gains was found suspicious, the assessee was asked to show cause

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

reassessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed an exemption of long-term capital gains of Rs.8,18,51,632, on the sale of shares of Comfort Intech Ltd and Splash Media under section 10(38) of the Act. Since the quantum of huge long-term capital gains was found suspicious, the assessee was asked to show cause

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

DCIT-CC 3(2), MUMBAI vs. ANIRUDDHA N MALPANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Short Term Capital Gains and exempt Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. These investigations were initiated on the basis of incriminating material unearthed at the time of the search action. Accordingly, the AO in the remand report submitted that the contention of the assessee that the said additions were made without the basis of any incriminating material unearthed

DCIT-CC3(2), MUMBAI vs. ANJALI A MALPANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Short Term Capital Gains and exempt Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. These investigations were initiated on the basis of incriminating material unearthed at the time of the search action. Accordingly, the AO in the remand report submitted that the contention of the assessee that the said additions were made without the basis of any incriminating material unearthed

ANJALI A. MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Short Term Capital Gains and exempt Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. These investigations were initiated on the basis of incriminating material unearthed at the time of the search action. Accordingly, the AO in the remand report submitted that the contention of the assessee that the said additions were made without the basis of any incriminating material unearthed

ANIRUDDHA N. MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC - 3 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Short Term Capital Gains and exempt Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. These investigations were initiated on the basis of incriminating material unearthed at the time of the search action. Accordingly, the AO in the remand report submitted that the contention of the assessee that the said additions were made without the basis of any incriminating material unearthed