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

capital gain, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the Shanno

DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO QI INSTITUTIONAL EMERGING MARKETS ENHANCED INDEX EQUITIES FUND, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

capital gains earned by the assessee was exempt from tax under the Treaty, hence, the assessee is not entitled to have th the Treaty, hence, the assessee is not entitled to have th the Treaty, hence, the assessee is not entitled to have the benefit of carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years. On appeal, carry forward

DCIT (IT) - 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO INSTITUTIONEEL EMERGING MARKETS FONDS , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

capital gains earned by the assessee was exempt from tax under the Treaty, hence, the assessee is not entitled to have th the Treaty, hence, the assessee is not entitled to have th the Treaty, hence, the assessee is not entitled to have the benefit of carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years. On appeal, carry forward

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

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

capital gains in\nthe reassessment order.\n16. In view of the above, the Ld.CIT(A)\nwas justified in deleting the estimated

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)

capital Date of gains/ loss made therein and the AOhaving Pronouncement: considered the details, took a conclusive 12/03/2025 view, reassessment

LEKHRAJ JASRAJ JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gains against equivalent amount of cash after deducting their commission. gains against equivalent amount of cash after deducting their commission. gains against equivalent amount of cash after deducting their commission. The list of such companies included the penny stock company M/s Matra The list of such companies included the penny stock company M/s Matra The list of such companies

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

capital gain and other sources, ultimately vide assessment order dated March 31, 2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, made various additions including the addition of Rs.6,81,11,103/- on account of brokerage income and added the same to the total income of the Assessee by concluding as under:\n\n\"08. Brokerage

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

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

capital gain.\n\nIt was held by the High Court that on the basis of the documents produced by the assesse in appeal. The commissioner [appeals], recorded a finding of fact that there was a genuine transaction of purchase of share by the assesse on 16/03/2001 and sale thereof on 21/03/2002. The transactions of sale and purchase were

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

reassessment under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income through Long-Term Capital Gain

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

reassessment order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 29/12/2017 passed by The Income Tax Officer, Ward 15 (1) (1), Mumbai [ The Ld. AO ] ,was dismissed. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is that long-term capital gain

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

Reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act are bad in law as the due process of law is riot followed.\" The assessee's case was reopened under section 148 of the Act due to earning of capital gain

SHEELA RAMCHAND UTTAMCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Capital Gain only in respect of the balance amount not utilised by the assessee for the purchase or construction of a new residential house. Consequently, the AO is directed to allow the exemption to the extent of Sheela Ramchand Uttamchandani Rs.50,86,472 being the amount paid for the new residential flat by the assessee. As a result, grounds