VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act merely on the basis that details regarding the source of source of funds of such rights shareholders has not been provided. Further, this action of the learned AO also undermines the order of learned TPO and learned DRP wherein the right issue made to such shareholders has been examined and verified with no adverse

SYNTENSIA NETWORK SECURITY INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

5(2) cannot be taxed under section 68 or 69 - Held, yes - Whether provisions of section 68 or 69 would be applicable in case of non- resident only with reference to those amounts whose origin of source can be located in India and therefore, provisions of section 68 or 69 have limited application in case

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST. PAUL,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM.WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Roman Catholic Church Of St. Income Tax Officer (Exem.), Paul Ward 2(2) St Paul Church, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai - 400014 (Pan : Aaatr2742L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11 1 2016-17 24-Oct-2017 37,00,000 5 37,00,000 0 0 2 2017-18 27-Oct-2018 38,00,000 5 17,50,412 20,49,588 20,49,588 3 2018-19 20-Oct-2019 68

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that loans amounting to Rs. 164,22,99,347/-represents FD renewal and thus out of scope of section 68 of the Act when the assessee has during the assessment as well as remand proceedings failed to furnish

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that loans amounting to Rs. 164,22,99,347/-represents FD renewal and thus out of scope of section 68 of the Act when the assessee has during the assessment as well as remand proceedings failed to furnish

MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (E) RG 1, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

5 Media Research Users Council 7. The Assessing Officer (pages 8-10 of the assessment order) held that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with sections 13(2) and 13(3) were applicable in the case of the assessee and, hence, the benefit under section 11 would be unavailable to the assessee. He contended that

MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

5 Media Research Users Council 7. The Assessing Officer (pages 8-10 of the assessment order) held that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with sections 13(2) and 13(3) were applicable in the case of the assessee and, hence, the benefit under section 11 would be unavailable to the assessee. He contended that

DCIT 4 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAMSHI SECURITIES P LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-4(1)(1) M/S Dharamshi Securities Limited 6Th Floor, 640, Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ 1073, Quest, Behind Beau Monde Towers M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajabhau Desai Marg, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai – 400 025 Pan No.: Aaacd-3924-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Jha- Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

68,41,119/- incurred in the trading activity on account of derivative segment (futures and options) against the business income during the year without appreciating the fact that AO has rightly treated the losses as speculative loss and not allowed to set off by invoking the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Income

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

68 to 69D of the Act, which provide for a separate charge for such items). 9.4(iii) The first step thus involves the characterisation of income – under what head of income it can be put. If the income is of the nature of salaries and it is to be placed under the head "Salaries" then for chargeability of income under

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

68,000/- received on settling of the trust “(ii) Details of investment held as on 31.03.2015 and explain as to whether the investments are as per provisions of section 11(5

THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

68,000/- received on settling of the trust “(ii) Details of investment held as on 31.03.2015 and explain as to whether the investments are as per provisions of section 11(5

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act\nand then held:\n\"8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative\nsociety has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State\nLegislature in that regard, the expression \"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i)\nmust

ACIT - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PROGRESSIVE SHARE BROKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

11,377/- on account of treating share trading loss as speculative loss and further in not segregating the assessee’s share arbitrage business in to two segments i.e. cash segment and derivative segment by not giving them separate treatment under the provisions of section 43(5) and explanation to section 73 of the Act. 2. During hearing, Shri

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act\nand then held:\n\n\"8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative\nsociety has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State\nLegislature in that regard, the expression \"members\" in Section

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act\nand then held:\n\"8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative\nsociety has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State\nLegislature in that regard, the expression \"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i)\nmust

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act\nand then held:\n\"8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative\nsociety has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State\nLegislature in that regard, the expression \"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i)\nmust

LUMINANT INVESTMENTS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

68, in terms, are not applicable The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount

DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SPS SHARE BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result Revenue fails in this appeal

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

11 of the SEBI Act, 1992) and SEBI has also been regulating the currency derivatives as evident from the above referred Press Release / Circulars. In fact, earlier, the Central Government had notified vide Notification No. S.O. 1327 (E) dated 22.5.09, the MCX Stock Exchange Ltd., which provides India-wide electronic platform for trading in currency futures under the regulatory control