Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

30 SOT 374Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#462 most cited

What is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

201

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT · CIT(A) powers · Section 263 · revisional power · scope of appeal · usurpation of power · Assessing Officer's case · ITAT Special Bench · Section 250 · Commissioner (Appeals)

Also reported as

313 ITR 263122 ITD 216122 TTJ 577117 Taxmann.com 578

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 144C(3)Section 139(1)Section 1961Section 250Section 143(2)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 120(4)(b)section 120(1)section 2(7a)section 163section 115jafees for included servicessection 120section 192tax treatysection 9(1)(vii)section 156

Judgments citing Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Silicon Graphics Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2935/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv
Section 143(3)

…ion in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. Vs CIT 323 ITR 130 (Del.) - held that no liability for TDS arises on a payment on account of reimbursement to a non- resident; Decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Mahindra & b) Mahindra Ltd. Vs DC IT 30 SOT 374 - held that no liability for TDS arises on a payment on account of reimbursement to a non-resident; Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Industrial d) Engineering Projects Pvt Limited 2003-TIOL-247-HC-DEL-IT - held that reimbursement of expenses cannot be regarded as revenue receipts in the hands of non resident; Decision of Delhi…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5629/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)

…. CITv. Sakura Bank Ltd. [2006] 100ITD215/[20061 6 SOT 684 (Mumbai) distinguished; Mcorp Global (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 434/ 178 Taxman 347 (SC) followed". Mumbai Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, v. Dv. CIT [20101 122 1TD 216 / 30 SOT 374 {Mum.) (SB), held as follows:-"In our considered opinion the Id. D.R. has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the A.O. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the AO or the C1T(A). His scope of arguments is confined to supporting or defending the impugned order. He cannot set up an altogether different case. If the…

Rajesh Bhatia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 551/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234B

…s to the rood of the matter. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble kerala High Court in case of CIT Vs. State Co-operative Marketing Federation 193 ITR 624 as well as the decision of Mumbai Special Bench in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. D.CIT 122 TTJ 577 and submitted that there can be no embargo on any party to raised a legal ground for the first time before the Tribunal provided the relevant material for deciding that question already exists on record and no further investigation of facts is required. Hence, the ld. AR has submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee by the admit…

Essar Power Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1849/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri K. S. Rajendrakumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 271Section 36

…by the Assessing Officer. 6. In this connection, the ld. Counsel of the assessee relies on the case laws as under: 1. Honda Trading Corporation vs. Dy. CIT in ITA No.1132/Del/2015 dated 15.09.2015 (Delhi-Trib) 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mum-SB) 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has submitted that in this case the Hon’ble High Court has passed an order. It is in pursuance that the Hon'ble High Court order that the A.O. has passed the order. Hence, he submitted that the order has been passed well within the mandated time as per section 153(6)(i) of the Act.…

D.D.I.T. (I.T.) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by assessee is as allowed

ITA 8368/MUM/2011[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 2Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…CIT [(2011) 10 Taxmann.com 208 (Mum)]. Before the Hon'ble Tribunal the AIR of the assessee also relied on the judgments of ITAT Mumbai in the cases of DCIT Vs. Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd. [(200S) 94 ITD 31 (Mum)], Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs DCIT [(2009) 30 SOT 374 (Mum) (SB)] and DDIT Vs Scientific Atlanta Inc [2009- TIOL-585-ITAT- MUMl Distinguishing all the above judgments on facts, the Hon'ble ITAT Cochin held that "the information, expertise and training provided by the USA company was absorbed by the assessee-company in their decision making process and it was utilized for the purpose of business. The…

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG II, Pune

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08

ITA 1086/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: S/s. M.P. Lohia, Jignesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 195Section 195ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…action in this regard in the case of the payee/recipient is barred by limitation. In this factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 122 TTJ 577 (SB) (Mum Trib) would squarely apply and cover the issue in favour of the assessee. 4.3.2 In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) the Special Bench observed that in a case where (i) the assessee has been held in default under section 201(1) of the Act and (ii) no assessment has been made in the hands of the payee/recipient, i.e. non payme…

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG II, Pune

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08

ITA 1085/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: S/s. M.P. Lohia, Jignesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 195Section 195ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…action in this regard in the case of the payee/recipient is barred by limitation. In this factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 122 TTJ 577 (SB) (Mum Trib) would squarely apply and cover the issue in favour of the assessee. 4.3.2 In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) the Special Bench observed that in a case where (i) the assessee has been held in default under section 201(1) of the Act and (ii) no assessment has been made in the hands of the payee/recipient, i.e. non payme…

Hitt Holland Institute of Traffic Technology B. V vs. DDIT, International Taxation 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic -Vs.- D.D.I.T. (Intl.T)-1, Technology B.V., Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabch 5694 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ar For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ficer, Ward 12 (2), Kolkata v . Right Florists (P.) Ltd. (20]3) 25 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata ITA T) B4U International Holdings Ltd. (2012) 18 ITR(T) 62 (Mumbai JT AT) Ernst and Young (P) Ltd. in re (2010) 323 ITR 184 (AAR) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCJT (2009) 313 ITR 263 (IT A T Mumbai -SB)] Worley Parsons Services (P) Ltd., In re (2009) 313 ITR 74 (AAR) ACJT vs Viceroy Hotels Ltd.(20 12) 18 ITR(T) 282 (ITAT Hyd) R.R. Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited (2011) 335 ITR 122 (AAR) ADIT v. WNS Global Service Private Ltd. (2011) 45 SOT 119 (Mumbai ITAT) 28. In the context of installation, testing and commission…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Geo Connect Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5851/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] there is no imparting as contemplated in the Treaties. Similar are the propositions on the issue of "make available" in the decisions in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Ramond Limited vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791; Cable and Wireless Networks India P. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 72.” 20. We find that in the DTAA between India and the USA the make available clause is in existence. The article 12(4) of the treaty is reproduced as under: “For purposes of this Article, "fees for included services" means payments of any kind to any p…

M/S Geo Connect Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 127/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] there is no imparting as contemplated in the Treaties. Similar are the propositions on the issue of "make available" in the decisions in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Ramond Limited vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791; Cable and Wireless Networks India P. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 72.” 20. We find that in the DTAA between India and the USA the make available clause is in existence. The article 12(4) of the treaty is reproduced as under: “For purposes of this Article, "fees for included services" means payments of any kind to any p…

DCIT Circle-12 (1) vs. Geo Connect Ltd

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2088/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] there is no imparting as contemplated in the Treaties. Similar are the propositions on the issue of "make available" in the decisions in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Ramond Limited vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791; Cable and Wireless Networks India P. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 72.” 20. We find that in the DTAA between India and the USA the make available clause is in existence. The article 12(4) of the treaty is reproduced as under: “For purposes of this Article, "fees for included services" means payments of any kind to any p…

Geo Convest Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-12 (1)

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1927/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] there is no imparting as contemplated in the Treaties. Similar are the propositions on the issue of "make available" in the decisions in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Ramond Limited vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791; Cable and Wireless Networks India P. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 72.” 20. We find that in the DTAA between India and the USA the make available clause is in existence. The article 12(4) of the treaty is reproduced as under: “For purposes of this Article, "fees for included services" means payments of any kind to any p…

Asst CIT Cir 11(5) vs. Jsw Steel Ltd

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 930/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. JSW Steel Limited, Assistant Commissioner (formerly known as Jindal of Income Tax, Vijaynagar Steel Limited) Circle 11(5), Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5A, Bangalore Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 026 PAN: AAACJ4323N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner M/s. JSW Steel Limited, of Income Tax, (formerly known as Circle-11(5), Jindal Vijaynagar Steel No.14/3, 5th Floor, Vs. Limited) Nrupathunga Road, Jindal…

Jsw Steel Ltd vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(5)

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. JSW Steel Limited, Assistant Commissioner (formerly known as Jindal of Income Tax, Vijaynagar Steel Limited) Circle 11(5), Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5A, Bangalore Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 026 PAN: AAACJ4323N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner M/s. JSW Steel Limited, of Income Tax, (formerly known as Circle-11(5), Jindal Vijaynagar Steel No.14/3, 5th Floor, Vs. Limited) Nrupathunga Road, Jindal…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Apollo International Group Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 223/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri L.P. Sahu & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 195Section 35ASection 40

…**ft2 • CIT v. Fortis Healthcare ltd.: 181 Taxman 257 (Del.) ~ fa \^ • CIT v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd.: 142 ITR 493 (Calcutta) ^ • CIT v, SG Pgnatale: 124 ITR 391 (Guj.) • CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft: 310 ITR 320 (Bom.) • Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT: 313 ITR 263 (AT)(Mumbai) (SB) • HNS India VSAT Inc. vs. DDIT: 95 ITD 157 (Del ITAT) • Compagnie Francaise D'Etudes Et De Construction vs. IAC: 8 ITD 215 • DCIT vs. Lazard India (P) Ltd.: 41 SOT 72 (Mum ITAT) ii. Reimbursement not in the nature of FTS Even otherwise, it is respectfully submitted, the aforesaid payment is not in the nature of 'Fees for includ…

Asst DIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1406/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 115ASection 144C(3)Section 234B

…t element, the receipt thereof should not to be taxed in its hands. Reliance was placed on following judgments dealing with non-taxability of reimbursement of expense: 1. CIT v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (310 ITR 320) (Bom) 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs DCIT 313 ITR 263(Mum)(SB) 3. CIT v. Industrial Engineering. Projects (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Del) 4. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd 142 ITR 493 (Cal) 5. JDITvs. Krupp UHDE GMBH[2009] 124 TIJ 219·(Mum ITAT) 6. DDIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.132 TTJ 566 (Mum ITAT) 7. Clifford Chance Vs DCIT 82 ITD 106 (Mum) 6 WNS 8. HCL Infosytems Ltd Vs OCIT 76 TTJ 505 (Delhi I…

Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6411/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 115ASection 144C(3)Section 234B

…t element, the receipt thereof should not to be taxed in its hands. Reliance was placed on following judgments dealing with non-taxability of reimbursement of expense: 1. CIT v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (310 ITR 320) (Bom) 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs DCIT 313 ITR 263(Mum)(SB) 3. CIT v. Industrial Engineering. Projects (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Del) 4. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd 142 ITR 493 (Cal) 5. JDITvs. Krupp UHDE GMBH[2009] 124 TIJ 219·(Mum ITAT) 6. DDIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.132 TTJ 566 (Mum ITAT) 7. Clifford Chance Vs DCIT 82 ITD 106 (Mum) 6 WNS 8. HCL Infosytems Ltd Vs OCIT 76 TTJ 505 (Delhi I…

ACIT 18(2), Mumbai vs. Keshav & Company, Mumbai

ITA 6276/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

…um/2015 case cannot be roped in the proceedings before the Tribunal. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Prakash I Shah -115 ITD 167(Mum)(SB); (ii) Maersk Global Service Centre India Pvt Ltd - 133 ITD 543; (iii) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. -122 TTJ 577 (Mum SB). On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that, this issue is directly related to the subject matter and in the additional ground the revenue is pleading that, alternatively, the amount in transaction should be treated as sales and consequently taxed as business income. This is purely a legal ground and hence same can be taken up before…

Keshav and Company, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

ITA 5639/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

…um/2015 case cannot be roped in the proceedings before the Tribunal. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Prakash I Shah -115 ITD 167(Mum)(SB); (ii) Maersk Global Service Centre India Pvt Ltd - 133 ITD 543; (iii) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. -122 TTJ 577 (Mum SB). On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that, this issue is directly related to the subject matter and in the additional ground the revenue is pleading that, alternatively, the amount in transaction should be treated as sales and consequently taxed as business income. This is purely a legal ground and hence same can be taken up before…

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6843/MUM/2012[208-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak JainFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…ntended by the learned A.R. that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the following judicial pronouncements on which he placed reliance earlier before the learned CIT(A): - i) Raymond Ltd. vs DCIT (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Mum) ii) Mahindra & Mahindra (30 SOT 374) (Mum SB) iii) Intratck Testing Services India P. Ltd. (307 ITR 418) (AAR) iv) DCIT vs. Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd. (94 ITD 31) (Mum) v) ITO vs. De Beers India Minerals P. Ltd. (297 ITR (AT) 1760 (Bangalore) 13.4 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the…