Obulapuram Mining Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

DY CTI, CC-16(1), ,MUMBAI vs. SHIPA SHETTY , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

…n 92A of the Act should be fulfilled. Ld. AR also relied upon the decision in the case of Page Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 159 ITD 680 (Bang. ITAT), Obulapuram Mining Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 76 taxmann.com 240 (Bang. ITAT) and ACIT v. Veer Gems [2017] 183 TTJ 588 (Ahd. ITAT) Ld. AR on the application of Sec. 92A submitted that sec. 92A(1)(a) does not apply to the Assessee's case, as neither Kuki, through /one or more intermediaries, controls the assessee nor the Assessee, through /one or more 4 Shilpa Shetty intermediaries, controls Kuki. It was also submitted that even sec. 92A(1)(b) is also not appli…

SOVEREIGN SAFESHIP MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(2)-2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Laleit Kumar, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Soveresign Safeship Vs. Income Tax Officer Management Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(2)-2, Shop No.37, M.M.R.D. Mumbai Market, Vansant Pride Thakur Complex Kandivali (East) Mumbai – 400 101 Pan/Gir No. Aamcs6425N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…te is unambiguous and it is very well settled that there is no estoppel against the statute. 7.2. We also find that the ld AR strongly placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Veer Gems reported in 183 TTJ 588 by referring to para 8 of the said judgement thereon. He also drew our attention to the fact that this tribunal decision was subsequently approved by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs Veer Gems reported in 407 ITR 639 (Guj) and Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dismissed in 25…

SHILPA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…n 92A of the Act should be fulfilled. Ld. AR also relied upon the decision in the case of Page Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 159 lTD 680 (Bang. ITAT), Obulapuram Mining Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 76 taxmann.com 240 (Bang. ITAT) and ACIT v. Veer Gems [2017] 183 TTJ 588 (Ahd. ITAT) . Ld. AR on the application of Sec. 92A submitted that sec. 92A(1)(a) does not apply to the Assessee's case, as neither Kuki, through /one or more intermediaries, controls the assessee nor the Assessee, through /one or more intermediaries, controls Kuki. It was also submitted that even sec. 92A(1)(b) is also not applicable as, though…

SHILPA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

…92A of the Act should be fulfilled. Ld. AR also relied upon the decision in the case of Page Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 159 lTD 680 (Bang. ITAT), Obulapuram Mining Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 76 taxmann.com 240 (Bang. ITAT) and ACIT v. Veer Gems [2017] 183 TTJ 588 (Ahd. ITAT) 15 I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 Shilpa Shetty Ld. AR on the application of Sec. 92A submitted that sec. 92A(1)(a) does not apply to the Assessee's case, as neither Kuki, through /one or more intermediaries, controls the assessee nor the Assessee, through /one or more intermediaries, controls Kuki. It was also submitted that even sec. 92A…