ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY OXYGEN CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

section 14A cannot be applied to those investments from which no dividend is received. The assessee also placed reliance on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Delite enterprises (ITA.No. 110 of 2009). and also the Coordinate Bench in the case of Avshesh Mercantile P. Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA.No. 5779/MUM/2006 dated 13.06.2012. This issued stands

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 251(1) (a) of the Act by directing the AO to refer the matter for valuation u/s 55A of the Act without categorically deciding the correctness of either assessee's valuation or valuation worked out by the AO?" 4. In addition to above, the Revenue has raised following additional grounds also. 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances

D.C.I.T. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PENINSULA LAND LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3440/Mum/2009 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S Peninsula Land Limited Dcit – 7(1), (Previously Known As Morarjee Realties Ltd.) 622, Aaykar Bhavan Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor बिाम M. K. Marg Mathuradas Mills Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 / Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5173-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3696/Mum/2009 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Dcit – 7(1), M/S Peninsula Land Limited 622, Aaykar Bhavan (Previously Known As Morarjee Realties Ltd.) Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor बिाम/ M. K. Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Mathuradas Mills Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5173-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri H. N. Singh – Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / : 05/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry. In view of the above and particularly in view of clear provisions of law as existing during

ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PENINSULA LAND LTD., MUMBAI

Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry. In view of the above and particularly in view of clear provisions of law as existing during

DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PENINSULA LAND LTD, MUMBAI

Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry. In view of the above and particularly in view of clear provisions of law as existing during

MERWYN ELIES DMELLO,THANE vs. ACIT CIR 2, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2006-07) Mr. Merwyn Elies D’Mello Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Rosy Villa, 2Nd Floor, Cross Garden Thane (Respondent) Road, Bakul Street, Bhayander (West), Dist. Thane Pan : Aacpd0902A (Appellant)

section 155 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The instant appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the order of CIT(A)-II, Thane for the Assessment Year 2006-07 raising the following effective Ground of appeal :- “2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Officer erred

EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

55A of the Act whilst sections 111A and 115AD only provide for determination of tax in certain cases and therefore, gains arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in section 70(2) of the Act. 3. Failed to appreciate that section

FIDELITY SALEM STREET TRUST FIDELITY SAI EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

55A of the Act whilst sections 111A and 115AD only provide for determination of tax in certain cases and therefore, gains arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in section 70(2) of the Act. 3. Failed to appreciate that section

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS FID EMG MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )2(3)(1), MUMBAI

55A of the Act\nwhilst sections 111A and 115AD only provide for\ndetermination of tax in certain cases and therefore, gains\narising on transactions subjected to STT and those not\nsubjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar\ncomputation' condition specified in section 70(2) of the\nAct.\nFailed to appreciate that section

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS EMERGING MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

55A of the Act\nwhilst sections 111A and 115AD only provide for\ndetermination of tax in certain cases and therefore, gains\narising on transactions subjected to STT and those not\nsubjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar\ncomputation' condition specified in section 70(2) of the\nAct.\n3. Failed to appreciate that section

ISHARES CORE MSCI TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARE CORE TAOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK MAURITIUS COMPANY ),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

55A of the Act whilst sections 111A and 115AD only provide for determination of tax in certain cases and therefore, gains arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in section 70(2) of the Act; 3. failed to appreciate that since section

ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TP) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

55A of the Act whilst sections 111A and 115AD only provide for determination of tax in certain cases and therefore, gains arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in section 70(2) of the Act; 3. failed to appreciate that since section

VIJETA TRADING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit, (Appeals), Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Office No.64,3Rd Floor Poddar Chambers, 23 Parsi Bazar Street, Fort Mumbai – 4000001. Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1137H (Applicant) (Respondent)

55A of the Act vide order dated 17.05.2019 estimated the f.m.v of the properties higher than the value adopted by the A.O in the order u/s 143(3) dated 14.03,2016 by a total amount of Rs 13,95,000/-. 9.2 In its submissions, the appellant has contended that the valuation of the DVO was based on some wrong assumption

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

SAURASHTRA FUELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 taxmann.com 366(Mum.Trib.)) ,which is authored by one of us (the Accountant Member) in which the decision of the Pune Bench of the ITAT in K.R.A. Holdings and Trading Private Limited(supra) was duly discussed. The order of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Captain Avinash Chander Batra v. DCIT in ITA no 7407/Mum2011 is reproduced hereunder

ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. DILIP SHOORJI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5987/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Shri Dilip Shoorji, बनाम/ Income Tax – 16(3), 4 Th Floor, Cutch Castle, V. Matru Mandir, 523, S.V.P. Road, 2 Nd Floor, R. No. 206, Opera House, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai – 400 007. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aoqps0438E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

55A of the Act to the assessee. The DVO-I, Mumbai further referred the matter to the DVO–II,Mumbai vide letter dated 21st December, 2011 for some plots as the jurisdiction was lying with him. ITA 5987/Mum/2013 3 The DVO-II, Mumbai informed the A.O. that the valuation of property will take some time and as such

VIPUL MAHASUKHLAL GOPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvipul Mahasukhlal Gopani, A-3003, One Avighna Park, Mahadev Palav Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaapg8761A ....... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

68, 36,260/-. The said land was sold on 05.12.2013 for Rs. 2, 07, 00,000/- resulting into a surplus of Rs. 1,38,63,740/-. The assessee is relying on the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act, reproduced below as under: 2(14) ["capital asset" means— (a) property of any kind held by an assessee, whether