GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

68 to 104). The transfer of the business to 104). The transfer of the business was made effective made effective from close of business hour on financial year end i.e. business hour on financial year end i.e. 31.03.2012. 31.03.2012. The BTA did not provide for payment not provide for payment of consideration by the assessee to nsideration by the assessee

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

68 to 104). The transfer of the business to 104). The transfer of the business was made effective made effective from close of business hour on financial year end i.e. business hour on financial year end i.e. 31.03.2012. 31.03.2012. The BTA did not provide for payment not provide for payment of consideration by the assessee to nsideration by the assessee

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

68 to 104). The transfer of the business to 104). The transfer of the business was made effective made effective from close of business hour on financial year end i.e. business hour on financial year end i.e. 31.03.2012. 31.03.2012. The BTA did not provide for payment not provide for payment of consideration by the assessee to nsideration by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 37(1) does not mean "necessarily". Ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of its or his business. Such expenditure even may be incurred voluntarily and without any necessity, and if it is incurred for promoting the business and to earn profits, the assessee can claim deduction thereof

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 37(1) does not mean "necessarily". Ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of its or his business. Such expenditure even may be incurred voluntarily and without any necessity, and if it is incurred for promoting the business and to earn profits, the assessee can claim deduction thereof

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275/- 2014-15 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 1,25,22,500/- 3,75,675/- Notional Commission u/s 69C 2015-16 Bogus LTCG u/s 68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT - 10 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

68,19,076/-. The Ld. CIT(A) simply following the order of his predecessor deleted the entire disallowance. 74. Before us, Ld. DR reiterated that is a capital expenditure. It is the say of the counsel that whether expenditure is revenue or capital has to be decided based on the facts of each case and the character of the expenditure