S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

Sp Jammu Udhampur Highway Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesp Jammu-Udhampur Highway Pvt Ltd., V. Dcit- Circle-3(3)(2) 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Aayakar Bhavan Minoo Desai Marg Mumbai - 400020 Colaba, Mumbai – 400005 Pan: Aaocs5512N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Chulawala Department By : Smiti Samant

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SP Jammu-Udhampur Highway Pvt Ltd., v. DCIT- Circle-3(3)(2) 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Aayakar Bhavan Minoo Desai Marg Mumbai - 400020 Colaba, Mumbai – 400005 PAN: AAOCS5512N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish Chulawala Department by : Smiti Samant Date of Hearing : 08.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commi…

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

…licability of the computation provided under section 48, it could still impose tax under the residuary head is thus unacceptable. If the income cannot be taxed under section 45, it cannot be taxed at all. [See S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC)] (17) Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v.…

DCIT, CC- 8(1), Mumbai vs. Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

…f Hon‟ble Jursidictional High Court as stated supra. Apart from that, the ld CITA also relied on the following decisions to grant relief to the assessee:- a) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S G Mercantile Corporation P Ltd vs CIT reported in 83 ITR 700 (SC) b) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs D P Sandu Bros, Chembur (P) Ltd reported in 273 ITR 1 (SC) 13.2. We find that the ld CITA had categorically given a finding that the investment in fixed deposit made with ICICI Bank has got an inextricable link with the business activity of the assessee and hence the interest income t…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

…9 (Guj)]. In any case, it is a settled law, that as per the scheme of the Act all the other heads of income must be exhausted / excluded first before taxing an income under the head “Income from other sources” [Ref: S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT [83 ITR 700 (SC)], CIT v. T.P. Sidhwa [133 ITR 840 (Bombay)] & Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [39 ITR 115 (SC)]. Hence even on this count the argument of the Ld. DR is contrary to the above and therefore unsustainable. 5. So far as the issue of disallowance of interest is concerned, the same has been dealt with adequately in the propositions alread…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

…9 (Guj)]. In any case, it is a settled law, that as per the scheme of the Act all the other heads of income must be exhausted / excluded first before taxing an income under the head “Income from other sources” [Ref: S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT [83 ITR 700 (SC)], CIT v. T.P. Sidhwa [133 ITR 840 (Bombay)] & Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [39 ITR 115 (SC)]. Hence even on this count the argument of the Ld. DR is contrary to the above and therefore unsustainable. 5. So far as the issue of disallowance of interest is concerned, the same has been dealt with adequately in the propositions alread…