Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.

Jiwan Satya Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…igh Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court’s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

Amit Tata Employees Co-Operative Hsg. Soc.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleamit Tata Employees Co-Operative V. Assistant Commissioner Of Housing Society Limited Income Tax – 21(1) 1 Amit Tata Employees Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers Murari Ghag Marg, Prabhadevi Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 028 Pan: Aaaja 0103 A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishwas V Mehendale

…igh Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court’s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

Shubham Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is dismissed and appeal for the AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Shubham Nagri Sahakari The Income Tax Officer- Patsanstha Maryadit, 29(3)(4), 997, 2/2, Aadarsh Housing Room No. 308, 3Rd Floor, Society, Parksite, Vikhroli (West), Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai Bkc, Mumbai - 400051 Pan:Aagts9805F Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shubham Nagri Sahakari The Pr. Commissioner Of Patsanstha Maryadit, Income Tax-29, 997, 2/2, Aadarsh Housing C-10, 3Rd Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Society, Parksite, Vikhroli (West), Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai Mumbai Pan:Aagts9805F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Naik (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2019

…Karn), the High Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). However, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), that where there is a conflict between decisions of nonjurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we thus respectfully follow the view taken by the H…

Shubham Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is dismissed and appeal for the AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Shubham Nagri Sahakari The Income Tax Officer- Patsanstha Maryadit, 29(3)(4), 997, 2/2, Aadarsh Housing Room No. 308, 3Rd Floor, Society, Parksite, Vikhroli (West), Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai Bkc, Mumbai - 400051 Pan:Aagts9805F Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shubham Nagri Sahakari The Pr. Commissioner Of Patsanstha Maryadit, Income Tax-29, 997, 2/2, Aadarsh Housing C-10, 3Rd Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Society, Parksite, Vikhroli (West), Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai Mumbai Pan:Aagts9805F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Naik (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2019

…Karn), the High Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). However, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), that where there is a conflict between decisions of nonjurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we thus respectfully follow the view taken by the H…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Ubj Broadcasting Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1205/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) िनधा"रणवष" Acit-16(1) M/S. Ubj Broadcasting Private Ltd. बनाम नाम/ Room No.439, 4Th Floor नाम नाम 6Th Floor, Adhikari Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Oberoi Complex, New Link Road Vs. Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053. ःथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcu-1341-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

…1 M/s. UBJ Broadcasting P. Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एफ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी संदीप गोसांई, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1205/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) िनधा"रणवष" ACIT-16(1) M/s. UBJ Broadcasting Private Ltd. बनाम नाम/ Room No.439, 4th Floor नाम नाम 6th Floor, Adhikari Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Oberoi Complex, New Link Road Vs. Churchgate,Mum…

Poonam Chambers Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4463/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14)

…Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd. [1983] 15 Taxman 594/[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

Lady Ratan Tower Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhlady Ratan Tower Cooperative Ito-21(2)(2) Room No. 111, 1St Floor, Housing Society Ltd. Dainik Shivner Marg, Worli, Vs. Piramal Chamebers, Parel, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400012. Pan: Aaaal1740P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mandar Vaidya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 29.12.2017 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…igh Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Thompson Assoaicates P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhacit-16(1), M/S Hindustan Thompson Room No. 439, Aayakar Associates Pvt. Ltd., Peninsula Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Chambers, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai-20 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaach1463M Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT-16(1), M/s Hindustan Thompson Room No. 439, Aayakar Associates Pvt. Ltd., Peninsula Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Chambers, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai-20 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. PAN: AAACH1463M Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR) Respondent by : Shri Arvind Sonde (Advocate) Date of Hearing : 04.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by Revenue is…

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2), Thane vs. Eternity Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

…igh Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Ito-21(2)(1), R.No. 107, Co-Op Society Ltd., Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel, Near Century Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai – 400 025 Pan No. Aaaak 4678 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak P. Rikekar & Shri Ajit Gupte, Cas. Department By : Ms. N. Hemalatha – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018. O R D E R

…igh Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…re, if there are two views, the view which is in favour of the assessee should be followed by applying the following binding judgments in the case of CIT vs. 15 Tata Sons Limited Vegetable Products Ltd. - 88 ITR 192 (SC); ITO vs. Siemens India Ltd. & Anr. -156 ITR 11 (SC) and order of the Tribunal dated 13.07.2016 in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Thompson in ITA No.6729/MUM/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11. Without prejudice to the above, the leanred counsel for the assessee submitted that the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd. is per incurium because it has ignored two binding decisions of…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…re, if there are two views, the view which is in favour of the assessee should be followed by applying the following binding judgments in the case of CIT vs. 15 Tata Sons Limited Vegetable Products Ltd. - 88 ITR 192 (SC); ITO vs. Siemens India Ltd. & Anr. -156 ITR 11 (SC) and order of the Tribunal dated 13.07.2016 in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Thompson in ITA No.6729/MUM/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11. Without prejudice to the above, the leanred counsel for the assessee submitted that the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd. is per incurium because it has ignored two binding decisions of…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Cir. 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…re, if there are two views, the view which is in favour of the assessee should be followed by applying the following binding judgments in the case of CIT vs. 15 Tata Sons Limited Vegetable Products Ltd. - 88 ITR 192 (SC); ITO vs. Siemens India Ltd. & Anr. -156 ITR 11 (SC) and order of the Tribunal dated 13.07.2016 in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Thompson in ITA No.6729/MUM/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11. Without prejudice to the above, the leanred counsel for the assessee submitted that the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd. is per incurium because it has ignored two binding decisions of…

Devkant Synthetics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…d Sons V/s CIT 263 ITR 101. The ld. AR submitted that while passing the assessment order the AO is bound to follow the decision of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case passed in the earlier years as has been decided in the case of Seimens India Ltd reported in 156 ITR 11(Bom). 6. The ld.DR relied on the decision of ld. PCIT and also the decision rendered in the case of Garden Silk Mills Ltd V/s CIT 221 ITR 861. The ld .DR relied heavily on the order of ld.PCIT by submitted that when the order is challenged before the higher forum, the AO has committed the error by a by accepting the order in assessee‟s own case fo…

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bgh Exim Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…he Bombay High Court in the case of K. Subramanian, ITO v. Siemens India Ltd. [1985) 156 ITR 11/15 Taxman 594 (Bom), which are as follows. "Reference may also be invited to the decision of the Bombay high Court in Subramanian, ITO v. Siemens India Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 11. The question that arose for consideration in this case is whether the Income-tax Officer is bound by the decision of a single Judge or a Division Bench of the Court within whose jurisdiction he is operating even if an appeal has been preferred against such decision and is pending. The following observations of the Bombay High Court may be extrac…

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 15(2)(1), Unit No.702, 7Th Floor, 4Th Room No.403, Floor, A – Wing, Hon’Ble Supreme Aayakar Bhavan, Court Business Park, Vs. M.K. Road, Behind Lake Castle, Mumbai - 400020 Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan: Aaccn0274A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R Ms. Chandni Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax 15(2)(1), Unit No.702, 7th Floor, 4th Room No.403, Floor, A – Wing, Hon’ble Supreme Aayakar Bhavan, Court Business Park, Vs. M.K. Road, Behind Lake Castle, Mumbai - 400020 Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 PAN: AACCN0274A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R Ms. Chandni Shah, A.R. Revenue by : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Dat…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Thompson Associates P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri C.N. Prasad, आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6729/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Acit-11(1), M/S.Hindustan Thompson बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Associates Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Peninsula Chambers, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 6729/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The ACIT-11(1), M/s.Hindustan Thompson बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Associates Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Peninsula Chambers, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACH 1463M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Rahul Raman Shri Pankaj Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Thomspon Associates P. Ltd, Mumbai

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘एच’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “H” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.746/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 वष" Asstt. Com…