MAANRAJ TRADING P. LTD ( UNDERLIQUIDATION),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 3414/Mum/2009 : (A.Y : 2005-06) M/S Maanraj Trading Pvt. Ltd Vs. Acit Cir 6(3) Poonam Chambers, 101E, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 018 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaacm0150 Mumbai – 400 020

111A of the Act and such capital gains would be subject to tax at a lower rate. If the shares are held by the appellants as stock-in-trade, profit on the sale of such shares would constitute business income and be subject to tax at a higher rate. As noted hereinabove, section 2(14)(i) of the Act defines

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment. Thus, the adjustments made \nby ld. TPO and added by the ld. Assessing Officer were deleted. \n\n83 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n25. 2. We note that there is no dispute in respect of impugned \ntransactions falling within the definition of SDT under clause (i) of \nsection

M/S. OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

111A and section 10(38) we hold that the gains are assessable as capital gains.\n\n19. For sake of ready reference the order of the Tribunal for the earlier year is reproduced herein below:\n\n“6. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the record as well as the orders of the authorities below. We have also deliberated

SANJAY KUMAR PODDAR,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Jain & Associates, Circle 15(1),Matru Mandir, Vs. 12 Engineer Building, 265, Princess Mumbai-400 006. Street, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan:Aabpp 2018 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3961/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Vs. Jain & Associates, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr Assessee By: Shri S.L. Jain

111A (Rs. 2.39 crores) Long-Term Capital Gains(LTCG) (Rs. 13.16 lakhs), that he had claimed exemption of Rs. 4.46 lakhs under section 10 (36)/10 (38) of the Act, that he had claimed loss in F&O segment of Rs. 3.23 crores. 3150 & 3961/M/14(09-10) Sanjay Kumar Poddar After considering the chart showing LTCG, STCG and other transactions

OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

section 111A and\nsection 10(38) we hold that the gains are assessable as\ncapital gains.\n19. For sake of ready reference the order of the Tribunal for\nthe earlier year is reproduced herein below:\n“6. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the\nrecord as well as the orders of the authorities below. We have\nalso deliberated

AGARWAL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalagarwal Holdings Private Ltd. 211, 2Nd Floor Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Road Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059 ............... Appellant Pan: Aauca5094K V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 ……………… Respondent Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

111A of the Act was a matter of enquiry, the aspect whether the income can also be taxed under the head “business income” as the assessee was formed explicitly for conducting the investment activity was not examined. Once there was no inquiry or examination by the AO on this issue, we find merit in the submissions of the learned

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n54 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \nfor allocation of notional expenditure. The deductions contemplated are \nthe

MAHALAXMI INNOVATIVE SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4856/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd. Dcit Cir 2(2) बिधम/ 1004, 10Th Floor, Maker Chambers-V, Mumbai Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm9810C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

section 111A came into effect. Further, disallowance u/s 14A are on different principles. In the light of the foregoing, I do not see any merit in these grounds. They are dismissed”. The CIT(A) thus on the basis of his aforesaid observations, not being persuaded to subscribe to the contentions of the assessee therein confirmed the action

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

111A. (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income chargeable under the head "Capital gains", arising from the transfer of a short term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unitof any equity oriented fund and - (a)the transaction of sale of such equity share or unit is entered into on or after

ACIT-17(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

111A. (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income chargeable under the head "Capital gains", arising from the transfer of a short term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unitof any equity oriented fund and - (a)the transaction of sale of such equity share or unit is entered into on or after

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

price. Under such circumstances, the assessee trust is not in a position to earn maximum profits. Thus, it could be safely said that certainly assessee trust is not in the business of trading of shares. The shares held by the assessee trust cannot be categorised as „stock- in-trade‟ of the assessee trust. 5.14. There is one more angle

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

111A | 3,798 | 2,76,33,183 |\n| 3. | Income from Other Sources | | 36,21,473 |\n| 4. | Gross Total Income | | 3,34,94,656 |\n| 5. | Assessed Income | | 3,34,94,656 |\n| 6. | Rounded off to | | 3,34,94,660 |\n4. The assessee filed the objections before the Hon'ble DRP who\ndeclined to accept the contentions

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

transferred the said debentures to a reputed and unrelated third party and accordingly had incurred bonafide capital loss which ought to have been allowed. (e) The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in making various observations/upholding the observations of the AssessingOfficer which are not substantiated by any evidence/findings and are merely surmises and appellant objects

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

transferred the said debentures to a reputed and unrelated third party and accordingly had incurred bonafide capital loss which ought to have been allowed. (e) The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in making various observations/upholding the observations of the AssessingOfficer which are not substantiated by any evidence/findings and are merely surmises and appellant objects

INDIUM IV (MAURITIUS) HOLDINGS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Price in relation to the international transaction. 4. Assessing Officer observed from the Computation of total income, that under the head “Capital Gains”, Assessee had carried forward the long term capital loss on sale/redemption of Shares amounting to Page No. | 2 Indium IV (Mauritius) Holdings Limited ₹.14,35,11,469/- but has claimed the Short Term Capital Gains on sale/redemption

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

prices of scripts are high so as to earn better gain. It is true that frequency and volume of transaction is one of a guiding factors to find out as to whether Shri Mohan K.Jain, Mumbai 33 I.T.A.No. 1033 & 748/Mum/2010 A.Y.2006-07 assessee deal in shares as trading asset or hold shares as investor, but certainly not a criteria. A prudent

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

prices of scripts are high so as to earn better gain. It is true that frequency and volume of transaction is one of a guiding factors to find out as to whether Shri Mohan K.Jain, Mumbai 33 I.T.A.No. 1033 & 748/Mum/2010 A.Y.2006-07 assessee deal in shares as trading asset or hold shares as investor, but certainly not a criteria. A prudent

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

prices of scripts are high so as to earn better gain. It is true that frequency and volume of transaction is one of a guiding factors to find out as to whether Shri Mohan K.Jain, Mumbai 33 I.T.A.No. 1033 & 748/Mum/2010 A.Y.2006-07 assessee deal in shares as trading asset or hold shares as investor, but certainly not a criteria. A prudent

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

prices of scripts are high so as to earn better gain. It is true that frequency and volume of transaction is one of a guiding factors to find out as to whether Shri Mohan K.Jain, Mumbai 33 I.T.A.No. 1033 & 748/Mum/2010 A.Y.2006-07 assessee deal in shares as trading asset or hold shares as investor, but certainly not a criteria. A prudent