NETESOFT INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

section 10(38) after 1-10-2004 then the loss from exempt source would be set off against taxable gain, such set off is contrary to law. (iv)In Mridu Hari Dalmia Parivar Trust v. AO [2016] 68

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee] 29. We are gainfully refer the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai tribunal in case of Ramprasad Agarwal reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. 16 Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai. Section 68, read with section 10

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)

10(38) and made addition of LTCG under section 68. The under section 68. The shares had been

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

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

section 10(38) is also not applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant as acquisition of shares through preferential allotment, bonus shares and split shares is not covered in transactions notified by CBDT in notification dated 05.06.2017. Thus, the addition of Rs. 48,68

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

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

section 10(38) is also not applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant as acquisition of shares through preferential allotment, bonus shares and split shares is not covered in transactions notified by CBDT in notification dated 05.06.2017. Thus, the addition of Rs. 48,68

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee] 103. In case of Ramprasad Agarwal reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) wherein held as under: "Section 68, read with section 10

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

68 of the Act. We draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Ltd. 317 ITR 218. " (D)[Green Infra Limtied – 38 taxmann.com 253 (Mumbai-Trib). 10. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material evidences brought on record

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

38,68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

38,68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

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

10(38) of the act and accordingly Treated the same as unexplained credits and added the same to the income of assessee under section 68

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

68 of the income tax act and ground number 4 is with respect to the addition of sale proceeds of ₹ 61,405,822 claimed exempt under section 10 (38