(CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd.

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by revenue is dismissed whereas Cross objection filed by assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

…end on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter" • CIT vs C. Parakh & Co. {India} Limited {29 ITR 661} {SC} "On the question of the admissibility of the deduction of Rs. 1,23,719, the contention of the appellant is that as the respondent had itself spilt up the commission of Rs. 3,12,699 paid to the managing agents, and appropriated Rs. 1,23,719 thereof to the profits earned at Karachi and had debited the some with it, it was not entitled to go ba…

Kolon Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2870/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Kolon Investment Pvt. Ltd. Cit-8, बनाम/ 417-419, 4Th Floor, Room No. 259, Aayakar Bhavan, M. V. Road, Andheri (E), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaack 9118 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Dave & Ms. Kadambari Dave ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: The Instant Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 31.3.2014 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Qua Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Dated 01.12.2011 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The Basis Of The Revision In The Present Case Is The Acceptance By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Of The Assessee’S Claim For Short Term Capital Gain (Stcg) On The Non- Exercise Of The Option To Subscribe To The (Equity) Share Capital In Sintex Industries

…ound to honour its’ obligation were the assessee to subscribe to its’ shares by 17/7/2009. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter [CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd. (1956) 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. Further, lest we be considered as having travelled outside the scope of this appeal, we may advert to the decisions, inter alia, in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB). 5. We decide ac…

Ald Automotive P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 907 & 109/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2179 & 601/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal Revenue By : Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08 & 2008-09, U/S. 253 Of (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter), Arising Out Of The Orders By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31.12.2012. The Appeals Raise Two Issues, One Brought By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue, I.E., With Regard To: A) Depreciation On Lease Assets; & B) Transfer (Of A Part) Of Fleet Management Charges To Maintenance Accounts

…ee/s, assuming so, valid and, as a corollary, would invalidate the assessee’s claim. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter [refer: CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. Notwithstanding, therefore, a claim of depreciation by the lessees/s, i.e., assuming so, there being no estoppel against law, the assessee’s claim, where correct, cannot be denied. The proper course with the Revenue is to deny or, as the case may be, withdraw such a claim in the ha…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive P.Tld, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 907 & 109/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2179 & 601/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal Revenue By : Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08 & 2008-09, U/S. 253 Of (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter), Arising Out Of The Orders By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31.12.2012. The Appeals Raise Two Issues, One Brought By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue, I.E., With Regard To: A) Depreciation On Lease Assets; & B) Transfer (Of A Part) Of Fleet Management Charges To Maintenance Accounts

…ee/s, assuming so, valid and, as a corollary, would invalidate the assessee’s claim. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter [refer: CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. Notwithstanding, therefore, a claim of depreciation by the lessees/s, i.e., assuming so, there being no estoppel against law, the assessee’s claim, where correct, cannot be denied. The proper course with the Revenue is to deny or, as the case may be, withdraw such a claim in the ha…

Anand R Bahl, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed and that by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7706/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Anand R. Bahl, Dy. CIT, Range 20(3), Saket, Plot No. 84, MIDC, 15th Piramal Chambers, 6th Floor, Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400093. PAN: AEBPB 7854 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.7332/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Anand R. Bahl, Jt.CIT, Range 20(1), Saket, Plot No. 84, MIDC, 15th Piramal Chambers, 6th Floor, Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400012…

ITO 6(1)1, Mumbai vs. Adikanksha Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed at the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.7237/Mum/2010 & 2049/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ito-6(1)-1, Adikanksha Impex Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 503, Aayakar Bhavan, 69-A/2, Shah & Nahar Industrial बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Estate, Dhanraj Mills Compound, Vs. Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacca 8081 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Bhatt

…31.3.2008 respectively. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter {refer: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. (1956) 29 ITR 661 (SC)}. 4. We summarize our decision as under: a) there is in the facts and circumstances of the case, nothing to support the inference of suppression of income, and the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on that account is upheld; b) the assessee would be entitled to its’ full claim for TDS on the tax deducted at source during…

ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

…ngth price of the international transaction of provision of software 11 ITA No.668(Asr)/2014 development services, as is being sought for. In this regard, reliance is sought to be placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. C.Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd…

Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

…ngth price of the international transaction of provision of software 11 ITA No.668(Asr)/2014 development services, as is being sought for. In this regard, reliance is sought to be placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. C.Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd…

Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO RG 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

…ngth price of the international transaction of provision of software 11 ITA No.668(Asr)/2014 development services, as is being sought for. In this regard, reliance is sought to be placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. C.Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

…ngth price of the international transaction of provision of software 11 ITA No.668(Asr)/2014 development services, as is being sought for. In this regard, reliance is sought to be placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. C.Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd…