“Section 89(1)”

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Sunil Vishnu Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 42(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrisunil Vishnu Gaikwad V/S. Ito Ward 42(3)(4), बनाम 4/32, Century Colony, P B Mumbai Marg, Near Doordarshan C41-43, G Block Bkc, Worli, Worli, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400030 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajepg5251G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Sandeep Vanjare, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm. of Income Tax Circle-34(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sandeep Vanjare, Asst. Commissioner Of Room-105, Madhusudan Income Tax, Chawl-135, Circle-34(3), Vs. P.B. Marg, Room No.832, Worli, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 013 Bkc, Bandra East, Pan: Abvpv8834H Maharashtra- 400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

tune of Rs.84,76,513/- from its former employer namely M/s. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. and consequently claimed a relief under section 89(1) of the Act read with rule 21A(2) of the IT Rules, 1962. On perusing the claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) during ... assessment proceedings, show caused the assessee to 2 Shri Sandeep Vanjare explain as to why relief under section 89(1) of the Act should be calculated as per sub rule (2) of Rule 21A of the Rules and not as per sub rule (4) of Rule 21A of the Rules

Nikunj Kaushik Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalnikunj Kaushik Shah, 201, Laxmi Palace Chsl, Vileparle (East), Mumbai- 400057, Pan: Apeps6446R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-32(1), R. No. 335, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 ..... Respondent

soon as they are discovered without waiting for an assessee to point them out. (7) Section 60(2) of the 1922 Act [sections 89(1) and 103 of the 1961 Act] - Cases where relief can properly be given under this sub-section should be reported to the Board. 8 Nikunj

Shri Vasudeo Babaji Chindarkar, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-34(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

company for the Financial Year 2016-17. In the return of income for assessment year 2017-18, the assessee claimed relief under section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’]. Along with return of income the assessee had uploaded Form No.10E as mandated under ... Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. and had received lumpsum ex-gratia compensation on termination of service. The assessee therein had claimed relief under section 89(1) r.w.r 21A(2). The Assessing Officer / CIT(A) determined relief by applying the provisions of Rule 21A(4). The Tribunal held that the assessee

Suryaji Shriram Patekar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 34(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming relief of Rs.2,97,711/- allowed by learned A.O. under section 89(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read wit Rule 24A(1)(c). 2. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the National ... Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) ought to have allowed relief under section 89(1) read with Rule 21A(1)(a) amounting to Rs.15,96,688/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal.” 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused

Sanjay Laxman Kangude, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 34(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming relief of ₹.3,01,889/- allowed by learned A.O. under section 89(1) of the Act read with Rule 21A(1)(c). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless ... Appeal Centre (NFAC) ought to have allowed relief under section 89(1) read with Rule 21A(1)(C) amount to ₹.16,46,076/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 14. Ld. AR of the assessee brought

Shri Rajesh Shantaram Chavan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir -34(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

circumstances the ex-gratia payments received by the appellant is in the nature of compensation on termination of employment and accordingly relief under section 89(1) shall be computed as per the provision of Rule 21A sub-rule (4) of the Income tax Rules, 1962. 5.2 The appellant has placed