DCIT 27(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. GANGA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shripavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit 27(1) R No.406, 4Th Floor, Tower M/S Ganga Developers Plot No. 219, Alal Asia, No.6, 11Th Road, Chembur, Vashi Railway Stn Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaafg 8230 C Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022

10(37) of the Act in any way as a circular can never alter the contents of a legislation. What the circular does is to acknowledge the fact that irrespective of class of land holder or type of land holding, acquisition made under RFCTLARR Act 2013 will not be subject to tax in spite of the fact that there

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

TDS, then allowability of such expenses would be subjected would be subjected to provisions of section 40 of the Act. These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention of the appellant

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

TDS, then allowability of such expenses would be subjected would be subjected to provisions of section 40 of the Act. These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention of the appellant

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

TDS, then allowability of such expenses would be subjected would be subjected to provisions of section 40 of the Act. These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention of the appellant

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

TDS, then allowability of such expenses would be subjected would be subjected to provisions of section 40 of the Act. These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention of the appellant

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

TDS, then allowability of such expenses would be subjected would be subjected to provisions of section 40 of the Act. These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention These are just a few illustrations to highlight that the alternate contention of the appellant

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

TDS, although appearing in Form 26AS\nand granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1).\n13. The AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n1,770/-/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n14. The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n26,928/- and under section 234C

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

ACIT 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS MAHARASTRA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 30-36 of the Act and thus qualifies for conside of the Act and thus qualifies for consideration u/s 37. It is neither ration u/s 37. It is neither capital expenditure nor personal expenditure of the Assessee. capital expenditure nor personal expenditure of the Assessee. capital expenditure nor personal expenditure of the Assessee. Further, Courts have time and again

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(3)(2),, MUMBAI

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

37(1) of\nthe Act, they are specifically excluded in clarification issued. There is no restriction\non an expenditure being claimed under above sections to be exempt, as long as it\nsatisfies necessary conditions under section 30 to 36 of the Act, for computing income\nunder the head, \"Income from Business and Profession\".\n16. For claiming benefit under section

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

37,00,000 22.06.2004 75,00,000 01.07.204 50,00,000 12.07.2004 57,25,277 11.02.2005 2,32,25,277 Total 105345521 12,21,60,000 9. We further find that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee in Para 4.4 by observing as under: - “4.4. I have gone through the same. The appellant has given

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

37,00,000 22.06.2004 75,00,000 01.07.204 50,00,000 12.07.2004 57,25,277 11.02.2005 2,32,25,277 Total 105345521 12,21,60,000 9. We further find that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee in Para 4.4 by observing as under: - “4.4. I have gone through the same. The appellant has given

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

37,00,000 22.06.2004 75,00,000 01.07.204 50,00,000 12.07.2004 57,25,277 11.02.2005 2,32,25,277 Total 105345521 12,21,60,000 9. We further find that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee in Para 4.4 by observing as under: - “4.4. I have gone through the same. The appellant has given

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the\nassessee.\n3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld.\nAssessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice\n4. On facts

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the same was in violation of section 101A(7) r.w.s. 2(9) of the Insurance Act?\"\nc) \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

TDS was not required. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as it is not applicable to insurance companies.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 37(1)", "Section 40(a)(i)", "Section 40(a)(ia)", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 43B", "Section 115-O", "Section 244A", "Section 194H", "Section 197", "Section 105A", "Section 44", "Section 40(1)", "Section 40(2A)", "Section

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

37,31,660/- was collected during the year. (ii) During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was specifically asked to give justification for the premium charged. The assesee's submission is that the issuance of-shares at a premium was a commercial decision and issues as per the terms of issue to group concerns and known persons. The valuation