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

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

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

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

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

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

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

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

150 11. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee company has acquired the shares of BSE limited on 07-10-2005 after corporatization and demutualization of Bombay Stock Exchange in lieu of BSE Membership card. The AO also noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation on BSE Membership card since 2000. Accordingly, he adopted

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

150 11. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee company has acquired the shares of BSE limited on 07-10-2005 after corporatization and demutualization of Bombay Stock Exchange in lieu of BSE Membership card. The AO also noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation on BSE Membership card since 2000. Accordingly, he adopted

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

150 11. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee company has acquired the shares of BSE limited on 07-10-2005 after corporatization and demutualization of Bombay Stock Exchange in lieu of BSE Membership card. The AO also noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation on BSE Membership card since 2000. Accordingly, he adopted

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

150 11. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee company has acquired the shares of BSE limited on 07-10-2005 after corporatization and demutualization of Bombay Stock Exchange in lieu of BSE Membership card. The AO also noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation on BSE Membership card since 2000. Accordingly, he adopted

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

150(1) is to be read literally and considered as posing a hurdle as contended for by the appellant, we think this result can be overcome by a liberal interpretation of section 297(2)(k). This clause reads: M/s Ganga Developers; A.Y. 17–18 "297. Repeals and Savings.- (1) ** (2)(a) to (j) ** (k)any agreement entered into, appointment made

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

section 58(4) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we would like to place on record, the elaborate arguments advanced by the counsels of both the sides with regard to the impugned issues in dispute. This Bench deems

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

150/- b) Commission Rs.1,41,00,556/- Rs.1,41,56,894/- There was admittedly neither deduction of tax at source by the assessee, nor any certificate toward non-deduction of tax u/s. 195(2) stood obtained by it. Though the ld. CIT(A) approved the Revenue’s case in principle, i.e., qua the applicability of section

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

150/- b) Commission Rs.1,41,00,556/- Rs.1,41,56,894/- There was admittedly neither deduction of tax at source by the assessee, nor any certificate toward non-deduction of tax u/s. 195(2) stood obtained by it. Though the ld. CIT(A) approved the Revenue’s case in principle, i.e., qua the applicability of section

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails