RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

price quoted on a recognised stock exchange, either on that date or on the date of transfer, whichever was lower. This presupposed that the shares were listed on one or both dates. For the sake of ready reference, relevant extract of Hon‟ble Finance Minister‟s Budget 2018 Speech is reproduced hereunder:- “155. Madam Speaker, currently long term capital gains

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’ for short) for determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transaction. Insofar as, domestic transactions are concerned, A.O. called for and examined various details. Based on the order of the TPO and his own enquiry conducted in course of assessment proceeding, the A.O. framed a draft assessment order. 4. Against the draft assessment

PRAVEEN SITARAM AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-24(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Long term capital gain Rs. 1,56,34,228/- 23. In support of the genuineness of the above transactions, the assessee had furnished before the authorities below a complete set of documentary evidence, including contract notes-cum-bills, confirmation from the stockbroker M/s. Shilpa Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., bank statements, dematerialisation statements, rate publications of the Bombay Stock Exchange, purchase

ANAND MELLARAM ISSRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) in the scrip of Term Capital Gain (LTCG) in the scrip of M/s Action Financial Ser M/s Action Financial Services (India) Ltd. (“AFSIL”), treated by the Revenue as a “penny stock”. (“AFSIL”), treated by the Revenue as a “penny stock”. 2.1 Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated

BENNETT, COLEMAN & CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground-7 of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

long-term capital gains of Rs.50.95 crores from the sale of equity shares and earned tax-free interest income of Rs.65.43 crores from tax-free bonds. The aforesaid income was claimed exempt under section 10(35) of the Act. While filing the return of income, the assessee, on a suo motu basis, computed the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

transfer of long term\nsecurities(Illustrations)\n Assessment year 2014-15- Assessee filed its\nreturn for relevant year Subsequently,\npursuant to a survey assessee filed revised\nreturn and claimed exemption in respect of\nlong-term capital gains on shares under section\n10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's\nplea and made additions undersections 68 and\n69 by relying on statements

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

long-term capital gains. It is pertinent to note that assessee has been holding the share from September 2012 onwards and the price of the very same scrip in the open market in October 2014 was ranging from Rs. 452 to 496 per share. Considering the drastic fall in the said scrip, the assessee had chosen to sell

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

long term capital gains\nincome of Rs.8479100/- as cash credit u/s.68 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 by relying on the information received from the\nDirectorate of Investigation, Kolkata, formed an opinion that\nthe capital gains income which arose out of sale of shares of\nTurbo Tech Engineering Ltd. and Kappac Pharma Ltd. are not\ngenuine. In response

CHITRA AVDHESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

long term capital gains\nincome of Rs.8479100/- as cash credit u/s.68 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 by relying on the information received from the\nDirectorate of Investigation, Kolkata, formed an opinion that\nthe capital gains income which arose out of sale of shares of\nTurbo Tech Engineering Ltd. and Kappac Pharma Ltd. are not\ngenuine. In response

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital in nature after completion of project when revenue had already been recognized from the project?” 2. The assessee before us also filed additional ground which reads as under: “Additional Ground No. III: Allowability of maintenance expenses of Rs. 92.32.199/- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the maintenance expenditure

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

Gains of Business or Profession.\"\n6\nITA Nos.261 & 1022/Mum/2025\nSamir Narain Bhojwani\n6. The AO during the course of assessment called on the assessee to furnish the\ndetails pertaining to the amount of Rs.12,40,00,703/- debited to the P&L A/c as\npayment as per consent terms. Based on the details furnished by the assessee, the\nAO held

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

transfer of\nKalpataru Properties as short-term capital gains as against long-term capital\ngains reported by the Assessee in the return of income\nEach of the grounds of appeal referred above is separate and may kindly be\nconsidered independent of each other.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any or\nall

VANGUARD EMERGING MARKETS STOCK INDEX FUND A SERIES OF vs. PLC ,MUMBAIVS.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

price which is bonus for shareholders. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that Section 62 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that "unless the articles of the company otherwise provide, the offer aforesaid shall be deemed to include a right exercisable by the person concerned to renounce the shares offered to him or any of them in favour

VANGUARD EMERGING MARKETS STOCK INDEX FUND A SERIES OF VIEF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

price which is bonus for shareholders. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that Section 62 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that "unless the articles of the company otherwise provide, the offer aforesaid shall be deemed to include a right exercisable by the person concerned to renounce the shares offered to him or any of them in favour

SHRI ANIL MURARILAL AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 18(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Murarilal Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward-18(1)(1) 703, Purna Worli Chsl Mumbai. Vs. Pochkhanwala Road, Worli Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaapa 9215 B Appellant Respondent

transfer of rights is void on the alleged plea that the assesse has violated terms and condition of alleged plea that the assesse has violated terms and condition of alleged plea that the assesse has violated terms and condition of SRA scheme without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not SRA scheme without appreciating th e fact that

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, ()

transfer of long term securities (Share dealings) - Assessment year 2013- 14- Assessee had sold shares of SNCFL and earned long-term capital gains - Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice alleging that transaction was a pennystock deal aimed at illegitimately claiming long-term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added

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, ()

transfer of long term securities (Share dealings) - Assessment year 2013- 14- Assessee had sold shares of SNCFL and earned long-term capital gains - Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice alleging that transaction was a pennystock deal aimed at illegitimately claiming long-term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added

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

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

transfer of long-term securities (Shares) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee individual engaged in business of trading in shares claimed long term capital gains arising out of sale of shares as exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing officer denied claim and made certain additions into assessee's income on grounds that said gains were earned through bogus penny stock transactions