PRASHANT KOTHARI,SINGAPORE vs. CIT A (57) MUMBAI, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of\nappeal is allowed

section 90 of the Act and by force of Article 13(4) of DTAA and\nsection 90(2) of the IT Act, capital gain arising to resident of Singapore is\nnot taxable in India and therefore, Article 24 was not applicable in the case\nof the appellant. To support the argument, the appellant relied upon the\ndecisions in the case

RARE INVESTMENTS,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) - 28 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Rare Investments Vs. The Commissioner Of 151, Nariman Point Income Tax (28), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 R.No.114, Aaykar Bhavan Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aahfr8059H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

151, Nariman Point Income Tax (28), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 R.No.114, Aaykar Bhavan Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AAHFR8059H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N Pawar Revenue by Shri D.G. Pansari Date of Hearing 03/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement 11/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal

MATRIX PARTNERS INDIA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

capital gains are to be examined from the vantage point of a complete "A.Y." (section 45) and on an aggregative "net" basis (sub-section 74(1)). 8. The case of DIT (International Taxation) v. IBM World Trade Corpn. [2020] 120 taxmann.com 151

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. SACHIN R. TENDULKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 19(3), Shri Sachin R. Tendulkar, R.No.305, 3Rd Floor, 19-A Perry Rd, बनाम/ Pirmal Chanbers, Bandra (E) Vs. Parel Mumbai-400050 Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapt4135B Revenue By Shri Ta Khan (Dr) Respondent By Shri Jitendra Jian (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 25 /01/2017

151/-. The Long term capital gain under the PMS is recorded on sale of mutual funds and debentures/ funds only. Besides, the PMS, there is LTCG from direct investment made by the appellant to the extent of Rs.17,17,977/- and under the head of mutual fund, it is Rs.34,686/- only. Overall, there is a loss of Rs.81

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

capital gains tax, only if the investment is made in one residential house property, one can still invest in more than one house and claim the lax: exemption, provided the taxpayer can prove that all such flats are used as a single residential nit by the family, In the abovementioned case, two residential units were purchased, which were separated

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

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

section 147, of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long-term securities\n(Bogus transactions) Assessment year 2006-\n07 Assesse purchased 3000 shares of\ncompany 'T' through a stock broker These\nshares were transferred to assesses demat\naccount - However, said stock broker submitted\nbefore authorities that he was providing\naccommodation entries for taking profit

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)

section 147, of 260 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains IN THE ITAT - Income arising from transfer of long- AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased 3000 Income-tax Officer, Ward- shares of company 'T' through a stock 10 (3), Ahmedabad* broker - These shares were transferred OCTOBER

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

capital gain as unexplained cash credit, Rs. 1,25,00,000/- made on account of treating unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 62,81,000/- disallowed under section 57 totally amounting to Rs. 6,46,91,500/- may kindly be deleted and the income declared by the assessee may be accepted.” 10. After considering detailed submissions

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 143(3). That reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., 374 ITR 645 and other Judgements of Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Delhi and Bombay ITAT. 20. As regards addition u/s. 68 of the Act for long term capital gain learned

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 143(3). That reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., 374 ITR 645 and other Judgements of Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Delhi and Bombay ITAT. 20. As regards addition u/s. 68 of the Act for long term capital gain learned