UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

47.\nExplanation. For the purposes of this clause, \"fair market value of\na property. being shares of a company not being a company in\nwhich the public are substantially interested, shall have the\nmeaning assigned to it in the Explanation to clause (vii);\"\n1.1. A plain reading of the said section, its provision &\nexplanation it is crystal clear that

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)

v. CIT (156 ITR 509). 40. This position continued until the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 sought to remedy this gap by inserting clause (AA) in Explanation (a)(iii) to section 55(2)(ac), specifically covering the case of equity shares unlisted as on 31 January 2018 but 27 Ramesh Jaisinghani listed thereafter by IPO or OFS. For the sake

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

section constitute one package. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 and Navin Jindal v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 708/187 Taxman 283 (SC) had observed that for the purposes of Sec. 48 of the Act, one must keep in mind an important principle, namely, that

MAIMOON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act in AY 2010-11, since all material rights including possession were transferred to the Purchaser in that year, consideration was discharged in that year and the Purchaser commenced enjoyment and use of the land, even though formal registration occurred later. The Ld. AO erred in disregarding the documentary and circumstantial evidence demonstrating

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

47) of section\n2 of the Income-tax Act.\n2. Consideration must be received or must accrue as a result of\nthe transfer and the consideration must be capable of being\ndetermined in monetary terms in order that the computation\nof capital gains may be made as required by section 48.\n3. Profits or gains must arise from the transfer

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

47. The necessity for the Parliament to incorporate Section 144-C is not only to safeguard the Revenue, but also the assessee and any mistake committed by any one of them, the said party is supposed to face the consequences and cannot put the hands of the clock back and start afresh.” 39.Further, in case of Zuari Cements Ltd. v

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

v. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 336/232 Taxman 414 decided the issue that Where re-assessment proceedings were initiated after expiry of four years from end of relevant years, sanction for issuance of notice for re- assessment proceedings was to be granted by Joint Commissioner and not by commissioner as per provisions of section 151(2

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for\nother monetary consideration. Therefore, for the purpose of\napplicability of section 54, registration of document is not\nimperative.\n9. The appellant submits that for the purpose of section 54 of the\nAct what has to be seen is whether the appellant has invested the\ncapital gains toward

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMAGRA WEALTHMAX PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 743 (SC), wherein it was held that where from the very beginning, purchase of shares is made with the intention of selling them, at a profit, it is an adventure in the nature of trade. However, we are unable to see any merits in these arguments either. Whatever be the scope of expression business

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

47,17,99,596/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of discount extended to pre-paid distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. Ground No. 4 raised by the Assessee is allowed. Ground No. 5 8. Ground No. 5 raised by the Assessee is directed against the disallowance of deduction under section

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

transfers ownership of the assets to the lessee by the end of the lease term; (b) lessee has the option to purchase the asset at a price i.e., accepted to be sufficiently lower than the fair market value.; Page No. 41 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited (c) the lease term

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROMELL HOUSING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the\nRevenue's Appeal is dismissed

v. Guna Dhar Bar [ILR (1940) II Cal\n270].\" (underline supplied)\n8.The Constitution Bench held that Section 47 of the Registration Act does\nnot deal with the issue when the sale is complete. The Constitution Bench\nheld that Section 47 applies to a document only after it has been registered,\nand it has nothing to do with the completion

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

2(31) of the Act. Thus, it is a case where the TPO proposed variation in the case of a non-existent entity, which is not even understood as a „person‟ under the Act. This also brings out that FEIPL could not be understood as an „eligible assessee‟ in the eyes of law under Section 144C

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Transfer" as defined under section 2(47) of the Act for the purposes of determination of Capital Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Transfer" as defined under section 2(47) of the Act for the purposes of determination of Capital Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Transfer" as defined under section 2(47) of the Act for the purposes of determination of Capital Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

2(31) of the Act. Thus, it is a case where the TPO proposed variation in the case of a non-existent entity, which is not even understood as a „person‟ under the Act. This also brings out that FEIPL could not be understood as an „eligible assessee‟ in the eyes of law under Section 144C

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

MR GAJANAN PARSHURAM KHISMATRAO,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(2), KALYAN

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

v) and (vi), "immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of section 269UA. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner