CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.

Rekha Bhupendra Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD-II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhrekha Bhupendra Dalal The Dcit, Osd-Ii, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Range-7, Vs. Dalal Street, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. Pan: Aaupd0962E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rekha Bhupendra Dalal The DCIT, OSD-II, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Range-7, Vs. Dalal Street, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. PAN: AAUPD0962E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vipul Joshi- Advocate Revenue by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR) Date of hearing : 29.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is dire…

Banggreen Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2000/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year-2007-08) Banggreen Holding Pvt. Ltd. DCIT Range (30(1) , Devidas Mansion, 4th Floor, Mumbai. Mereweather Road, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai-400039 PAN: AAACB2093F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Yogesh A. Thar with : Ms Ayushi Modani (AR) Revenue by : Shri Suman Kumar (DR) Date of hearing : 31.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals b…

Pushpavati Khushalchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negims. Pushpavati Khushalchand Mehta Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1) C/O. Sujan Impex Pvt. Ltd. Pratyaksahakar Bhavan C-3 Nanddham Indl. Estate Vs. C-10, B.K.C., Bandra Marol Maroshi Road Mumbai 400050 Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 Pan – Ahppm7568P Appellant Respondent

…t been able to point out that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question (ii). ” 3.3.3 The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (259 CTR 383) (Bom) on similar fact situation was followed by a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mita J. Jhaveri in ITA No. 6210/Mum/2012 dated 30.08.2016. We find that in the case on hand, the assessee had declared the income arising out of purchase and sale activity in shares and securities as STCG as against business income assessed by the A…

ACIT - 17(2), Mumbai vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Acit – 17(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company, 387-389, Narshi Natha Street, Katha Bazar, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aacfj5169K Appellant) .. Respondent)

…o offered by the assessee. The CIT(A) has recorded a categoric finding to the effect that there was a full disclosure by the assessee on all the material facts and after applying the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., 259 CTR 383 deleted penalty so imposed. 6. I also found that on identical facts AO has dropped penalty in the case of assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10. Copies of the letter of the AO dropping penalty for these orders were also placed on record. A detailed finding so recorded by CIT(A) has not been controverted by learned DR by bringing any…

Mita J Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Sh. Mahavir Singh,Jm & B.R. Baskaran,Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No./6210/Mum/2012, िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ms. Mita J. Jhaveri The Acit-16(1) A-10, Walkeshwar Triveni Chs Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Matrumandir, Tardeo Marg 66, Walkeshwar Road Vs. Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Aadpj 7504 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. Ravichandran-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:30.08.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S 254(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(The Act) O R D E R "याियक सद"य के अनुसार Per Mahavir Singh,Jm :

…erred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein the penalty for concealment u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for change of head of income and consequent claim of exemption was deleted. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 259 CTR 383(Bom.) has held that the AO considered the premium received on redemption of debentures to be taxable under the head income from other sources while the assessee considered the same to be taxable under the head capital gains and Hon'ble High Court held that there is only change of head of income and in the absence of any evidence that the claim o…

Shivam Steel & Tubes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3)

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4691/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Shivam Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-5(3) Unit No.264, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. A-Z, Industrial Premises Co.Op. Soc. Mumbai. Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aadcs 9345 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Dr Assessee By: Shri Jayesh Dadia सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 03.6.2014 Of Cit(A)-9 Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Steel Tubes & Furniture Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.9.2009 ,Declaring Total Income Rs.1.24Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3),On 5.12.2012,Determining Its Total Income At Rs.1.35Crores.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4691/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Shivam Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Circle-5(3) Unit No.264, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. A-Z, Industrial Premi…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Sharad S. Ruia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon’Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-34, Vs. Sharad S. Ruia, Mumbai. D-704,Vastu Park, Evershine Nagar, Malad (W), Mumbai - 95

…e not been written back. This finding of fact by the Tribunal is not under challenge. " "In CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.(1999) 236 ITR 518, the Supreme Court disapproved the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 1021. In this judgment, the Bombay High Court had distinguished its earlier judgment in Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 578 by holding that cessation of liability can take place even as a result of an unilateral act and where a debt has become barred by limitation by operation of law, the unilateral act of the assessee transferring the s…

Chilamika Lalini Hariani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannumrs. Chilamika Lalini Hariani, C/O. Grew Industries Pvt. Ltd., 202A, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan:Aaaph 7884B ... Appellant Vs. The Ito , Ward 6(3)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent

…her concealed her income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 7.1 Apart therefrom, the Ld. Representative for the assessee had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., 259 CTR 383(Bom) to canvass that where there was only a change of head of income and in the absence of any claim being found to be non-bonafide, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not maintainable. The said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court also support the stand of the assessee that in the present case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act…

ITO 23(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Anjana Sinha, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…sh Jhunjhunwala, ld. counsel for the assessee, defended the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by contending that the impugned issue is covered by the decision from Hon’ble jurisidictional High Court in CIT vs Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd. 259 CTR 383 (Bom.) and the decision in CIT vs Vamchampigons & Agro Produce 284 ITR 408 (Del.). This factual matrix was not controverted by the Ld. DR. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared income of Rs.5,84,009/- in his return filed on 10/08/2007. The c…

Ge Asset Management Incorporatede A/C. General Electric Pension Trust, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6853/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ge Asset Management Ofice Of The Dy. Director Of बनाम/ Incorporated A/C. General Income-Tax(International Vs. Electric Pension Trust, Taxation), Range 3(1), C/O Pricewaterhouse R. No. 136, Scindia House, Coopers Pvt. Ltd., N.M. Road, Ballard Estate, Pwc House, Plot 18/A, Mumbai-400 038 Guru Nanak Road, Stational Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatg 3740P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri S.E. Dastur Shri Neeraj Sheth Ms Fereshte D. Sethna Shri Mrunal Parikh Shri Jasbir Chouhan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

…e was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. 253 (V 57 C 52) , CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd 322 ITR 158 and also on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. 259 CTR 383, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pricewaterhouse Coopers 5 ITA. No. 6853/M/2010 Pvt. Ltd., 348 ITR 306 and on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Fidelity Management Trust Co. in ITA No. 1617, 1618 & 1619 & 1620/M/2010. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the Revenue authoritie…

ITO 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Chemical & Alkali Distributors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

…(Assessment Year : 2007-08) 4 decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518 (SC). Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of J K Chemicals Ltd. 62 ITR 34 (BOM) and CIT vs Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 201 ITR 1021 and full bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharat Iron and Steel Industries 198 ITR 67 (GUJ) (FB). Accordingly, grounds of appeal no. 2 and 3 are allowed. 7” 5. Against the above order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in further appeal before us. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of auth…

Nationwide Pharmassist Distribution Pvt. Ltd ( Now Merged With Bigdeal Mercantile P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 7(1)(1)

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.5648 & 49/Mum/2008,& 5650/Mum/08, िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-1998-99,2000-01 & 2002-03 Nationwide Pharmassist Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(1) Distribution Private Limited Mumbai. (Now Merged With Bigdeal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Nicholas Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. Pan: Aaacn 3346 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Neeraj Seth राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2015 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14-10-2015 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 1961 की धारा 254 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench- Challenging The Order Dated 06.06.2008 Of Cit(A)-Vii,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Assessment Years.

…f section 139 was over, that the order for the AY 01-02 was passed on 30.1.2004.He referred to pg-21 of the paper book and stated that reasons for re-opening of the assessment were not supplied to the assessee.He relied upon the cases of Bennet Coleman & Co. (33 Taxmann.com 227), Amit Jain( 33 Taxmann.com 178) and Procter and Gamble Hygiene Heath Care Ltd. (Income tax Appeal (L)No.946 of 2012 dt.12.3.2013).Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the FAA and relied upon the cases of Zoom Communication and PSP Industries.He contended that it was not a case of change of head of income,that the income h…