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)

short term capital gains disclosed by him to be genuine in the reopened assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 26-5-23. The learned AR placed on record the copy of the said 13 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. assessment order in pages 53-56 of the synopsis. This evidence also goes

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

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

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice under section 148 was issued on 22/07/2022.\n\n2.4 Thereafter, various notices under section 143(2) and 142[1] was issued on the Appellant, in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the appellant had furnish the complete details and evidence including contract note for purchase and sale of shares

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 under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the act on 29/12/2017 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,461,230/–. 12. Assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) challenging the reopening of the assessment as well as the additions on the merits of the case, the learned

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

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 of 01,500/-received as genuine. The Assessing on sale of shares of on sale of shares

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

ASHOK JASRAJ JAIN, HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

term capital gains against equivalent amount of cash after deducting their commission. gains against equivalent amount of cash after deducting their commission. gains against equivalent amount of cash after deducting their commission. The list of such companies included the penny stock company M/s Matra The list of such companies included the penny stock company M/s Matra The list of such

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

short term capital loss of Rs. 1,86,384/- against long term capital gain of Rs. 5,13,908/- which was allowed by the AO in reassessment order passed u/s 147

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs.56,49,475/- and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 28,61,567/. The assessee claimed LTCG exemption u/s 10(38) of Rs. 35,75,885/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and was accepted. The Assessing Officer (AO) while making scrutiny of assessment for AY 2007-08 observed that

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment order also, the appellant has been held to be an investor in shares and not a trader in share. The order u/s. 143(3) r.w,s, 147 dated 26.12.2007, however contains finding of the A.O. that the long term capital gain declared by the appellant is a short

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment order also, the appellant has been held to be an investor in shares and not a trader in share. The order u/s. 143(3) r.w,s, 147 dated 26.12.2007, however contains finding of the A.O. that the long term capital gain declared by the appellant is a short

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment order also, the appellant has been held to be an investor in shares and not a trader in share. The order u/s. 143(3) r.w,s, 147 dated 26.12.2007, however contains finding of the A.O. that the long term capital gain declared by the appellant is a short

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment order also, the appellant has been held to be an investor in shares and not a trader in share. The order u/s. 143(3) r.w,s, 147 dated 26.12.2007, however contains finding of the A.O. that the long term capital gain declared by the appellant is a short