RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

148A read with section 149/151. The approval of specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file reply to obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

148A read with section 149/151. The approval of specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file reply to obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file

BALRAM CHAINRAI,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX , WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

transfer of the said fund. It is alleged by the AO that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of creating that fictitious loss since the assessee is receipt of dividend income from the said mutual fund. Therefore, the AO reopened the assessee's case by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, pursuant to the directions

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer of equity shares of Essar (India) Ltd. is genuine based on the following factors: Ltd. is genuine based on the following factors: Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi. Sh 15 a) The shares have been transacted (sold) on the on SEBI recognized a) The shares have been transacted (sold) on the on SEBI recognized a) The shares have been transacted (sold

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI , MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer from sales consideration. Considering the provisions of the said section and the facts of the present case, it is seen that the appellant’s computation of short-term capital loss by reducing the cost of investment i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000/- from sales consideration of Rs. 49,16,785/- appears to be in line with the provisions

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer from sales consideration. Considering the provisions of the said section and the facts of the present case, it is seen that the appellant’s computation of short-term capital loss by reducing the cost of investment i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000/- from sales consideration of Rs. 49,16,785/- appears to be in line with the provisions

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer from sales consideration. Considering the provisions of the said section and the facts of the present case, it is seen that the appellant’s computation of short-term capital loss by reducing the cost of investment i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000/- from sales consideration of Rs. 49,16,785/- appears to be in line with the provisions

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer from sales consideration. Considering the provisions of the said section and the facts of the present case, it is seen that the appellant’s computation of short-term capital loss by reducing the cost of investment i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000/- from sales consideration of Rs. 49,16,785/- appears to be in line with the provisions

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer from sales consideration. Considering the provisions of the said section and the facts of the present case, it is seen that the appellant’s computation of short-term capital loss by reducing the cost of investment i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000/- from sales consideration of Rs. 49,16,785/- appears to be in line with the provisions

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer from sales consideration. Considering the provisions of the said section and the facts of the present case, it is seen that the appellant’s computation of short-term capital loss by reducing the cost of investment i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000/- from sales consideration of Rs. 49,16,785/- appears to be in line with the provisions

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer from sales consideration. Considering the provisions of the said section and the facts of the present case, it is seen that the appellant’s computation of short-term capital loss by reducing the cost of investment i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000/- from sales consideration of Rs. 49,16,785/- appears to be in line with the provisions

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands\ndismissed

transfer from sales\nconsideration. Considering the provisions of the said section and the\nfacts of the present case, it is seen that the appellant's computation of\nshort-term capital loss by reducing the cost of investment i.e.\nRs.1,00,00,000/- from sales consideration of Rs.49,16,785/- appears\nto be in line with the provisions

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE MITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAXATION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

148A(d) of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31-03-2023. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued asking the assessee to furnish copy of the purchase deed along with details of mode of payment towards purchase of property, copy of bank account statement and sources of funds with supporting

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE,THANE vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

148A(d) of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31-03-2023. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued asking the assessee to furnish copy of the purchase deed along with details of mode of payment towards purchase of property, copy of bank account statement and sources of funds with supporting

ACIT 32 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHUBHAM DYNAMIC REAL ESTAE DEVELOPERS LLP, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

148A(d) and issued notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee in response to the notice filed the return of income on 23.08.2024. The AO called on the assessee to furnish details pertaining to the flats sold during the year under consideration and to show-cause why the difference between the stamp duty value and the value

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WAN HAI (LINES)PVT.LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit 5(3)(1), Mumbai Vs M/S Wan Hai (Lines) Private Room No.573, 5Thfloor. Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 A 102 & 103, The Qube, Marol Village, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059 Pan : Aaacw4257A Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), and a notice under Section 92CA of the Act was issued, requiring the assessee to furnish all necessary details and documents in support of the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The assessee provided the relevant information and explanations to the TPO during the course of hearings. After examining the case, the Ld. TPO issued an order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. DIBYA TRADING CO LLP, MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Dibya Trading Co. Llp

148A(b) of the Act was issued on 22.03.2022 asking the assessee to show cause as to why a notice u/s ITA No.4330/Mum/2024 & C.O. No. 191/Mum/2024 Dibya Trading Co. LLP A.Y. 2015-16 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of the aforesaid referred information. However, the assessee has failed to make any compliance within

ACIT CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAJENDRA NARPATMAL LODHA, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

148A issued a notice under section 148 requiring the assessee to file the return of income. The AO also called on the assessee to file the necessary details and to explain why addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) should not be made for the difference between the purchase value and the stamp duty value. The assessee, in response submitted

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

148A read with section 149/151. The approval of\nspecified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was\nobtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file reply to\nthe notice and hence the notice issued on 20-3-2022 through\nspeed post at the address given on the PAN Database was\nsufficient to return a finding that