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? " 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in holding whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in h whether the learned CIT(A) was justified

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)

69A of the Act. Therefore, we decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order. 3. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee relied upon the detailed written submissions filed by him on behalf of the assessee, the same is reproduced herein below: A. Brief facts of the case 1. The assessee is an HUF which earns income

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

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

69A to 69D though he has stated to apply tax rate as\nper section 115BBE.\n\n8. 6. 4. If the inference is drawn that ld. AO has made a\ndisallowance of claim of exemption by the assessee u/s 10(38),\nthen, first and foremost, his statement of applying the rate of\n60% under section 115BBE does not hold good

VINAY PARMANAND HARIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT), WARD-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Kempinski Private Residences Room No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Unit 40F Dki Jakarta, 10310 India Building, Nariman Point, Indonesia. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabph 4179 A Appellant Respondent

Capital Gain without providing the information collected directly by the AO to Gain without providing the information collected directly by the AO to Gain without providing the information collected directly by the AO to the assessee, when it is specifically requested by the assessee and the assessee, when it is specifically requested by the assessee and the assessee, when