ZODIAC JRD MKJ LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

68 of 1988) or by the Rural Electrification Corporation Limited, a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)” 10. It is undisputed fact on record that the assessee has made an agreement with the builder for purchase of office premises at Bharat Diamond Bourse in the year 1992 and since then they were

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

54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was claimed. 4 The Assessing Officer has held that neither the purchase nor sale of shares were genuine and that the amount of Rs.1,41,08,484/- stated to have been received by the Assessee on sale of shares was undisclosed income and accordingly made addition under section 69 of the Income

ANJALI PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

54E against purchase of flat - Held, yes” In the case of Jamnadevi Agrawal (supra) the coordinate bench has held as under: “Section 68

MOHD RAZA AKBERALI GHUGHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

68 years of Mumbai Indian inhabitant, residing at Al Hilal Bldg., Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 do solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. I say that since my taxation matters are being attended by Shri N. S. Virani, Chartered Accountant, the order of the id. CIT (A) dated 01.07.2011, upon receipt, was forwarded to him in the last

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

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

54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was claimed. The Assessing Officer has held that neither the purchase nor sale of shares were genuine and that the amount of Rs.1,41,08,484/- stated to have been received by the\n\nassesse on sale of shares was undisclosed income and accordingly made addition under section 69\n\nHon

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

54E. There is nothing to indicate that investment is restricted to any of the specified assets. Had the Legislature intended to restrict investment in any one of the specified assets, it would have used the words ‘in any one of the specified assets’ instead of ‘in any specified asset’. This clearly shows that the word ‘any’ has been used where

NIAMAT MAHROOF VIRJI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1964/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Niamat Mahroof Virji, I.T.O. 17(3)(3), बनाम/ Unit 232, 2 Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, V. Bussa Udyog Bhavan, Opp Parel P.O., T.J. Road, Mumbai. Sewree. Mumbai – 400 015. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahpv1071H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

68 of 1988) or by the Rural Electrification Corporation Limited, a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).] Section 54EC of the Act clearly stipulates that the investment has to be made in specified long term assets within a period of six months after the date of transfer of the original asset. The word

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

68,141/- which was claimed exempt under section 10(33) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee-company has debited an interest expenses of Rs. 15,24,00,244/- in the profit and loss account but has not attributed any expenditure towards earning of such exempt income. The assessee argued before the AO that investments

ITO 21 (1) (5), MUMBAI vs. JAYA DEEPAK BHAVNANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer-21(1)(5) Smt. Jaya Deepak Bhavnani Room No. 120, 1St Floor 407, Sun Industrial Estate Vs. Piramal Chambers Sunmil Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400012 Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaapb7618R Appellant Respondent

68,000/-. The AO denied exemption under Section 54 F and added the same on the ground that capital gain resulting from sale of depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Act is short term capital gain and therefore no exemption of the same can be claimed under Section 54F of the Act. In the appellate proceedings

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books of account and in the instant case, the appellant had allegedly failed to explain the purchases of penny stock and the sales thereof. (iv) Thus, the alleged capital gains

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books of account and in the instant case, the appellant had allegedly failed to explain the purchases of penny stock and the sales thereof. (iv) Thus, the alleged capital gains

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

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income- tax under the head 'Capital gains", and shall he deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. This basis of charge as provided in section 45 has the following salient features: i. Profits and gains should arise to a person

DY.C.I.T. CENT. CIR-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI DILIP B.JIWRAJKA, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objections for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14

68 & 69C of the Act based on the unsubstantiated and irrelevant statements of entry operators / exit providers qua the assessee. 45. At this juncture, it is necessary to remind ourselves that, similar allegations had been levelled by the SEBI in as much as this watchdog had directly suspected the assessee of price rigging to reap LTCG, in their interim order

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

68,186/- was required to be deposited in capital gain account scheme which is not been deposited and therefore, the only proportionate exemption of capital gain is allowable to the assessee. 012. Further, the claim of the learned Assessing Officer is that as assessee has not shown any capital gain in the return of income and further has not claimed

SUPERMAX PERSONAL CARE P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI

68,71,48,000/-. 2.The assessee has raised two effective grounds of appeal.First one is about validity of the proceedins,whereas in the second ground merits of the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)has been challenged. 2.1.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that,the assessee had entered into the two Business Transfer Agreement (BTA),on 30/12/2010,with

LATE SHRI GORDHANDAS S. GARODIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

68 taxmann.com 319. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel submitted to safeguard the interest of Revenue, the assessee is ready to furnish an undertaking before the Assessing Officer offering to tax the amount of ` 50 crore in case it is received in any future assessment year. 13. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing

ASST CIT CEN CIR 3, THANE vs. PRAKASH GUNAJISAWARDEKAR, THANE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Circle-3, Prakash Gunaji Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Sawardekar, बनाम/ Ashar It Park,B-Wing, 102/B, Atlanata Vs. Wagle Indl. Estate, Hiranandani Estate, Thane(W)-400602 B.G. Road, Patlipada, Thane(W)-400607 Pan No. Aadps1088B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

54E of the Act amounting to Rs.50 lakhs. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the addition was deleted against which the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2.2. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions

APOLLO FINVEST (INNDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06

68,840/- and Rs.34,24,459/- as book profits under section 115JB of the Act. AO made addition on account of “short term capital gain‟ in the assessment. Matter travelled to the first appellate authority. 6. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee