PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

108 has been allowed under section 40(b)( ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This expenses has been claimed against exempted dividend income. Therefore, whether this expense is claimed or allowed under section 36(1)(iii) or 40( b)(ii) will not make any difference for the purpose of applying provisions of section 14A of the Income

SKYLINE RESIDENCY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD II) CEN RG -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

10% 1,160,081 Edu. Cess@30% 348,024 Less:Prepaid Taxes 13,108,916 TDS 64,928 Advance Tax 5,500,000 Self Assessment Tax 3,500,000 9,064,928 4,043,988 Add:Int.U/s. 234B 1,329,727 234C 603,721 1,933,448 Total tax payable 5,977,436 Less; paid

DCIT (OSD-II) C RG 7, MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE RESIDENCYH P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

10% 1,160,081 Edu. Cess@30% 348,024 Less:Prepaid Taxes 13,108,916 TDS 64,928 Advance Tax 5,500,000 Self Assessment Tax 3,500,000 9,064,928 4,043,988 Add:Int.U/s. 234B 1,329,727 234C 603,721 1,933,448 Total tax payable 5,977,436 Less; paid

SKYLINE RESIDENCY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD II) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

10% 1,160,081 Edu. Cess@30% 348,024 Less:Prepaid Taxes 13,108,916 TDS 64,928 Advance Tax 5,500,000 Self Assessment Tax 3,500,000 9,064,928 4,043,988 Add:Int.U/s. 234B 1,329,727 234C 603,721 1,933,448 Total tax payable 5,977,436 Less; paid

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of preamble to the MMRDA

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of preamble to the MMRDA

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of preamble to the MMRDA

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of preamble to the MMRDA

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of preamble to the MMRDA

DCIT(TDS)-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

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

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

10,000/- and the late payment amount to Rs. 7,34,21,100/-. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention and deleted the TDS demands. Aggrieved, the revenue filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and submitted a written submission dated 23/01/2025

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

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

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

10,000/- and the late payment amount to Rs. 7,34,21,100/-. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention and deleted the TDS demands. Aggrieved, the revenue filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and submitted a written submission dated 23/01/2025

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

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

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

10,000/- and the late payment amount to Rs. 7,34,21,100/-. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention and deleted the TDS demands. Aggrieved, the revenue filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and submitted a written submission dated 23/01/2025

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

TDS of Rs. 1,24,82,097/- as against Rs. 1,25,90,372/- claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. 6. Ground 6: Interest charged under section 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act The Id. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

TDS credit. Ground number nine is with respect to the interest charged under section 234B and ground number 10 is with respect to the initiation of penalty proceedings. 069. The learned departmental representative also agreed with above statement of facts. 070. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

TDS credit. Ground number nine is with respect to the interest charged under section 234B and ground number 10 is with respect to the initiation of penalty proceedings. 069. The learned departmental representative also agreed with above statement of facts. 070. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

TDS / consequent disallowance under section 40(a) (i) of the Act. (Copy enclosed at page 134 of the Bank’s Appeal, legal paperbook), which read as under: “88. Keeping in view all the facts of the case and the legal position emanating from the interpretation of the relevant provisions of domestic law as well as that of the treaty

ROSE ROCK REAL ESTATE INDIA PVT.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 2(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed

108 ITR 345 (SC) wherein it was held that there is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there. Such importation would be, not to construe, but to amend the statute. Thus it is clear that order u/s.200A of the Act has been wrongly passed to levy late fees U/S.234E nor there was any authority