TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital loss or not.\nThe Hon'ble High Court held that consequent to assessee's\ndefault in not paying the balance of money on allotment, its right\nin the shares stood extinguished on its forfeiture and the loss\nsuffered by the assessee, i.e., non-recovery of share application\nmoney is consequent to the forfeiture of its right in the shares

EMERGING MARKETS INDEX NON-LENDABLE FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

248\n2,09,87,996\nShort-term capital loss other than\nthose covered under section 111A\nof the Act\nNIL\nShort-term capital loss covered\nunder section 111A of the Act\n9,99,56,707\nNet Short-term capital gains

EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY INDEX MASTER FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

248\n2,09,87,996\nShort-term capital loss other than\nthose covered under section 111A\nof the Act\nNIL\nShort-term capital loss covered\nunder section 111A of the Act\n9,99,56,707\nNet Short-term capital gains

I SHARES ESG AWARE MSCI EM ETF ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) -2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

248\n2,09,87,996\nShort-term capital loss other than\nthose covered under section 111A\nof the Act\nNIL\nShort-term capital loss covered\nunder section 111A of the Act\n9,99,56,707\nNet Short-term capital gains

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NARENDRA GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

capital gain. 5.7 The ld counsel further ld counsel further relied on the decision of the Hon' ble on the decision of the Hon' ble the case of Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh Supreme Court in the case of [2002] 254 IT 112 (SC) [2002] 254 IT 112 (SC) wherein it was held that

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 which is exempted under section 10(38) of the Act:-  Copy of share allotment  Copies of sale bills  Copy of bank statement  Copy of demat account  Copy of contract notes Page No. 24 Udayan Grover xx. At the Bombay Stock Exchange, the price of the shares of M/s Greencrest Financial Services Limited had continuously been in the range