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

43(5) of the 1961 Act. While on the other hand the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of IVF Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA no. 4798/Mum/2012, AY 2009-10 and decision in the case of Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., AIR 2011 (Mad) 144 . He also relied upon

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

68,428 on BSE membership rights and of Rs. 2,61,528 on NSE membership rights be directed to be allowed. 5. We have gone through the order February 28, 2014 of the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09. We notice that the Tribunal has allowed the similar claim

JM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

68, 428/- on BSE membership rights and of Rs.2,61,528/- on NSE membership rights be directed to be allowed. 5. We have gone through the order 28.2.2014 of the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for AY 2008-09. We notice that the Tribunal has allowed the similar claim of the assessee for depreciation

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

M/S. VISION MILLENIUM EXPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: BEFORESHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

68,75,000/- 3/23 BOL/Agri/Vision/03 22.07.2014 22.07.2014 88,900/- 1,11,400 2500 22,500 22,500 5,62,50,000/- /22 BOL/Vision/BOL/03 21.07.2014 21.07.2014 88,700/- 1,11,400 2300 22,700 22,700 5,22,10,000/- /21 TOTAL 26,88,38,500 All the above said contracts were settled and the loss

KEDIA SHARES & STOCKS BROKERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

43(5) of the Act and the same has been supported by the decision in the case of DCIT vs. SSSKI Investors (P) Ltd. 113 TTJ 511 and RKB Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 6 118 TTJ 465, (iii) since the assessee’s entire income is from share trading, the loss or profit earned through these transactions is deemed

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

43 parties by issuing summons u/s. 131 of the Act. With respect to the remaining parties (leaving aside the parties in respect of which PAN was not available), no addition was made under Section 68 on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the documents like ITR and bank statement of the lenders and has submitted

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

43 parties by issuing summons u/s. 131 of the Act. With respect to the remaining parties (leaving aside the parties in respect of which PAN was not available), no addition was made under Section 68 on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the documents like ITR and bank statement of the lenders and has submitted

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

43,092 is\nbad in law and ought to be deleted\n9. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P\n9.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants.\n9.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

43,092 is\nbad in law and ought to be deleted\n\n9. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P\n\n9.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants.\n\n9.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances

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

43,092 is\nbad in law and ought to be deleted\n9. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P\n9.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants.\n9.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

43,092 is\nbad in law and ought to be deleted\n9. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P\n9.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants.\n9.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BRIGHT PAINTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

43(5) and not for Section 73 as done by the ld. AO. The ld. AR further contended that the Explanation to Section 73 is applicable only to the business of the purchase and sale of shares and not for trading in derivatives. The ld. AR relied on the several decisions viz. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

43,37,91,438/- which has to be set off against the income for the assessment year 2002-03 for working out the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Since there is no eligible profit, the assessee company is not eligible for any deduction u/s 80IA of the Act although the impugned assessment year 2002-03 has been considered

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

5), III. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd.v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) (para 6), IV. Yogendrakumar Gupta v. ITO [2014] 366 ITR 186/46 taxmann.com 56 (Guj.) (para 6), 40 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. V. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82/249 Taxman 568 (Guj.) (para 6), VI. Jayant Security & Finance Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [Sp. Civil Application

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

5. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has provided a facade of documents to justify the receipts offered under the head Business & Profession. The assessee has not submitted a single document in support of actual work done for its clients. For instance, if the assessee has genuinely provided the services by identifying new clients

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

5. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has provided a facade of documents to justify the receipts offered under the head Business & Profession. The assessee has not submitted a single document in support of actual work done for its clients. For instance, if the assessee has genuinely provided the services by identifying new clients

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

43. We would like to refer the decision Gujrat High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Mamta Rajivkumar Agarwal reported in [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat) whereas held as under. Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long term securities (Share dealings) - Assessment year

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

43. We would like to refer the decision Gujrat High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Mamta Rajivkumar Agarwal reported in [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat) whereas held as under. Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long term securities (Share dealings) - Assessment year