CIT v. Paramount Premises (P.) Ltd.

SHREENATH REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarshreenath Realtors, Ito Ward - 19(3)(1), 10 Patel Mansion, Mumbai Proctor Road, Grant Vs. Piramal Chambers, Road, Mumbai-400 007 4Th Floor, Room No. 405, Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Abifs7530G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Priyanka Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2026

…T. Stanes & Co. Ltd., Staff Pension Fund, and not a decision in the case of Autopins (India) Ltd..It was further contended that the reliance placed by the learned CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Paramount Premises Pvt. Ltd. (190 ITR 259) is also misplaced. 10. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A) and inviting our attention to para 6.6 and 6.7 of the impugned order, submitted that the learned CIT(A) has rightly applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fert…

DCIT- CC- 5(3), MUMBAI vs. IRB JAIPUR DEOLI TOLLWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2542/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-5(3) बिधम/ M/S. Irb Jaipur Deoli Tollway Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Air India Building, Irb Complex, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai- Village, Andheri, East, 400021. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacci1724Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Ms. Dhanalaxmi Iyyar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Dated 03.06.2021. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Of Rs.4,70,67,196/- Which Was Added By The Ao U/S 56 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

…essee. Interest was earned out of monies accruing from the business of the assessee and the same was also utilized for the purpose of its business. [Para 6] In view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court the case of CIT v. Paramount Premium (P.) Ltd. [1991] 190 ITR 259 in which an identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee and, which was squarely applicable to the facts of the instant appeal, the interest income earned by the assessee would be assessable as income from business and not as income from other sources. [Para 7] Therefore, there was no dismissed. [Para 9]….” High Court of Bombay in the ca…

M/S. FIRSTFLIGHT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CC -5(3) , `MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

…est income was rightly netted off against interest expenditure. It was also submitted that the treatment given by the assessee would get support from the following decisions rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court : a) CIT Vs. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 b) CIT Vs. Lok Holdings (2010) 189 taxman 452. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, he assessed interest income in the hands of the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 3. The Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly r…

COURTYARD REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD,`MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri Abyt Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Courtyard Real Estate Private Limited 1St Floor, Windsor, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz East Mumbai-400098 Pan: Aadcr0870K ...... Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..…Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Jitendra Jain, Ca Respondent By : Shri Shyam Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As Cit (A)] Vide Order Dated 26.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Solitary Issue Disputed In Appeal Is As Under: “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Treating The Interest Income Earned On Fixed Deposits (Fd) Of Rs. 60,49,527/- As “Income From Other Sources” For The Year As Against Reducing The Same From The Total Cost Of Work In Progress. 2. The Appellant Submits That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Interest Income Earned On Fd Of Rs. 60,49,527/- Reduces The Interest Cost On Funds Borrowed For The Project & Thus Has Been Rightly Reduced From The Cost Of Project. 3. Your Appellant Craves Leave To Add, To Alter, Or To Amend The Aforesaid Grounds Of Appeal. 2 M/S Courtyard Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee-Company Is In The Business Of Real Estates Development & Construction. It Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2017- 18 On 30.3.2018 Declaring Income For The Year At Rs. 56,72,910/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Was Constructing A Residential Project At Pokhran Road No 2, Thane. It Was Following Percentage Completion Method (Pcm) Of Accounting For Revenue Recognition.

…ssued in this case and dismiss the application.” (d) CIT vs Lok Holdings [308 ITR 0356 (BOM HC)] “7. The advocate appearing for the respondent relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom). The facts of Paramount were almost similar to the facts before us. The assessee in that case had received deposits in instalments from prospective purchasers while the work of construction was in progress. If the purchasers failed to make deposits by stipulated dates, they were required to pay interest. Idle amounts were deposited with the…

LHOTSE DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY IT 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Lhotse Developers Vs. Dcit – 12(3)(2) & Traders Pvt Ltd., Room No. 147B, 1St Hotel Grand Hometel, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Cts No. 406/11, 4Th Mk Road, Mkumbai – Floor, Raheja 400020. Chambers, Linking Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl0079N Appellant .. Respondent

…he assessee. Interest was earned out of monies accruing from the business of the assessee and the same was also utilized for the purpose of its business. In view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paramount Premium (P) Ltd [1991] 190 ITR 259 in which on identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee and which was squarely applicable to the facts of the instant appeal, the interest income earned by the assessee would be assessable as income from business and not as income from other sources. 10. We considering the ratio of the decision, facts and the submissions of the assesse…

DCIT , CC- 8(1), MUMBAI vs. NIRSHILP SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

…tries Ltd vs DCIT reported in 40 SOT 55 d) Decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sanchita Marine Products Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in 15 SOT 280 e) Decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Paramount Premises (P) Ltd reported in 190 ITR 259 (Bom) f) Decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Lok Holdings reported in 189 Taxman 452 (Bom) 13.1. We find that the ld CITA duly appreciated all the contentions of the assessee together with the various case laws relied upon including the decisions of Hon‟ble Jursidictional High Court as stated supra. Apart from that…

ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FILMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M.Balaganeshacit, Circle-16(1) Vs. M/S. National Film Room No.439, 4Th Floor Development Corporation Ltd. 6Th Floor, Discovery Of India Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai-400 020 Nehru Centre Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn3540R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Chetan A. Karia, Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik, Dr Date Of Hearing 30/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): This Appeal Filed By Revenue In Ita No.444/Mum/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-04, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-4/E-File-66/Acit-16(1)/2016-17, Dated 19/11/2018 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 23/03/2016 By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

…d were for the purpose of funding media release and production of big films/short films, that the process of film production would undertake different stages and would be spread over for a longer period of time. He relied upon cases of Paramount Premium Ltd. (190 ITR 259), Lok Holdings (308 ITR 356), Bihar State Co-operative bank Ltd. (39 ITR 114) and finally allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative(DR)strongly supported the order of the AO and stated that assessee was not in business of earning interest income, that interest income was…

ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. NATINAL FILMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ramlal Negiआयकर अपील सुं./I.T.A. No.5956/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 बिाम/ Acit 16(1) M/S. National Film R.No.439,Aayakar Bhavan, Development M.K Marg, Mumbai 400020 Corporation, V. 6Th Floor, Discovery Of India, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nehru Centre, Worli, Mumbai 400018 स्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan:Aaacn3540R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Aarsi Prasad (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Chetan Karia स िवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramlal Negi, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.06.2017, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, (Cit(A)) Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax (Act). 2. The Assessee Company Engaged In The Business Of Distribution Of Films, Film Production, Film Finance, Media Campaign, Exports Of Films, Service Projects Including Subtitling, Hiring Of Equipments, Video Studio Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under

…film production undertakes different stages and spread over a period of time, hence such fund could not be utilized immediately. The appellant gets support from the decision ofHon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases ofCIT vs. Paramount Premium Pvt Ltd. C1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Lok Holdings (2009) 308 ITR 356 (Bom). Id. A.O. has tried to distinguish the facts of the case but has not properly appreciated the propositions of the cases supporting the claim of the appellant It is pertinent to point out the various propositions related to taxability of interest on deposit under the re…

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Ambuja Cement India बिाम/ ACIT CIR 3(1) Private Ltd. (Since Merged Aayakar Bhavan, with Holcim India P. Ltd.), v. M.K. Road, 106, Maker Chamber-III, Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AACCA3390A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Soumen Adak & Shri. Harish Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Satish…

ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. NATINAL FILMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

…nly presumed the nature of the income as interest income, that the relevant facts revealed that the advances received were for the purpose of funding media release and production of big films/short 5737/M/15 M/s. National Films Development Corporation Ltd. (190 ITR 259), Lok Holdings (308 ITR 356), Bihar State Co-operative bank Ltd. (39 ITR 114) and finally allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4.During the course of hearing before us,the Departmental Representative(DR)strongly supported the order of the AO and stated that assessee was not in business of earning interest income, that interest income was ri…