CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 2633@Eaqcbz@2015 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacw2472M Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 10 (1), Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020 Vk-Vk-La- 2738@Eaqcbz@2015 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 10 (1), Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 Cuke Vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacw2472M

…ick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by the Court, to support their proceedings. This is what precisely the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) (Refer LPB-4 Page No. 485-500). 9. The Appellant submits that in order to trigger disallowance u/s 37(1) applying Explanation 1 thereto, the question as to whether there is any infraction of law or whether the expenditure is incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, has to be first decided/determined by the…

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

…ng to do with the said 17 Assessment Years: 2017-18 head of income. The Supreme Court clearly held that the doctrine of merger was not attracted to a case of that nature. The Supreme Court followed its earlier judgment in CIT v. Sun Engg. Co. (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 and held that the Tribunal had found that all the subsequent events were in respect of matters other than the lease equalisation fund. In other words, this was not a case where the subject-matter of the assessment and the reassessment was the same. The Supreme Court then held as follows :— "We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that keeping i…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…e cannot be subjected to jurisdictional review, is preposterous. First of all, taking out a word or sentence from the entire judgment, divorced from the context and relying upon it, is not permissible (see CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 64 Taxman 442/198 ITR 297 (SC)). It may be useful to reproduce the context in which the sentence in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) being relied upon by the Revenue to support its case, was made. The context, is as under:— "The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…e cannot be subjected to jurisdictional review, is preposterous. First of all, taking out a word or sentence from the entire judgment, divorced from the context and relying upon it, is not permissible (see CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 64 Taxman 442/198 ITR 297 (SC)). It may be useful to reproduce the context in which the sentence in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) being relied upon by the Revenue to support its case, was made. The context, is as under:— "The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

…the applicable legal provisions have not been brought to the notice of Their Lordships, even this persuasive value cannot be of any help to the assessee. 16. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt Ltd [(1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)], “The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the Court must carefully try…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

…the applicable legal provisions have not been brought to the notice of Their Lordships, even this persuasive value cannot be of any help to the assessee. 16. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt Ltd [(1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)], “The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the Court must carefully try…

Maker Towers A & B Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1057/Mum./2022 ITA No.1059/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) (Assessment Year : 2016–17) ITA No.1058/Mum./2022 ITA No.1060/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Maker Tower A&B Co–operative Housing Society Ltd., Ground Floor, Maker Tower, ……………. Appellant A & B Wing, Cuffe Parade, Colaba Mumbai 400 005 PAN – AAABM0409M v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Ward–17(3)(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri R…

Maker Towers A & B Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1057/Mum./2022 ITA No.1059/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) (Assessment Year : 2016–17) ITA No.1058/Mum./2022 ITA No.1060/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Maker Tower A&B Co–operative Housing Society Ltd., Ground Floor, Maker Tower, ……………. Appellant A & B Wing, Cuffe Parade, Colaba Mumbai 400 005 PAN – AAABM0409M v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Ward–17(3)(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri R…

Maker Tower A& B Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner Income Tax, 1(2) NFAC Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1057/Mum./2022 ITA No.1059/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) (Assessment Year : 2016–17) ITA No.1058/Mum./2022 ITA No.1060/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Maker Tower A&B Co–operative Housing Society Ltd., Ground Floor, Maker Tower, ……………. Appellant A & B Wing, Cuffe Parade, Colaba Mumbai 400 005 PAN – AAABM0409M v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Ward–17(3)(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri R…

Maker Tower A&B Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ward 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1057/Mum./2022 ITA No.1059/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) (Assessment Year : 2016–17) ITA No.1058/Mum./2022 ITA No.1060/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Maker Tower A&B Co–operative Housing Society Ltd., Ground Floor, Maker Tower, ……………. Appellant A & B Wing, Cuffe Parade, Colaba Mumbai 400 005 PAN – AAABM0409M v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Ward–17(3)(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri R…