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 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

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

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

161 Taxman 218 (SC) 4. Dr. Sarita Milind Davare, ITA No.2187 & 1789/Mum/2014 dated 21.12.2016. 5. Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA No.4625 to 4630/Mum/2013 dated 11.10.2013. 6. CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative of the assessee pointed out that the company was incorporated to carry out the business

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

161 Taxman 218 (SC) 4. Dr. Sarita Milind Davare, ITA No.2187 & 1789/Mum/2014 dated 21.12.2016. 5. Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA No.4625 to 4630/Mum/2013 dated 11.10.2013. 6. CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative of the assessee pointed out that the company was incorporated to carry out the business

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

161 Taxman 218 (SC) 4. Dr. Sarita Milind Davare, ITA No.2187 & 1789/Mum/2014 dated 21.12.2016. 5. Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA No.4625 to 4630/Mum/2013 dated 11.10.2013. 6. CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative of the assessee pointed out that the company was incorporated to carry out the business

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3 (2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)() read with Sections 160, 161, 162 and 163) 74. In the present case, it has been vehemently urged that TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)() read with Sections 160, 161, 162 and 163) 74. In the present case, it has been vehemently urged that TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)() read with Sections 160, 161, 162 and 163) 74. In the present case, it has been vehemently urged that TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPE\RS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS SUCESSOR OF BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)() read with Sections 160, 161, 162 and 163) 74. In the present case, it has been vehemently urged that TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)() read with Sections 160, 161, 162 and 163) 74. In the present case, it has been vehemently urged that TDS

DAE(SY22) LEASING (IRELAND)41, DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We accordingly so hold. 80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 to 6.8 stand allowed. Nature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease 81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that

ORTUS AIRCRAFT LEASE 6(DUBLIN) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We accordingly so hold. 80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 to 6.8 stand allowed. Nature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease 81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that

TFDAC IRELAND II LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty's object and purpose. We accordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand allowed.\n\n62\nITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before

PUNIT DEORA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

TDS stood\nwithdrawn from AY 2018-19. Adjustment made being without Intimation\nas required under 1stproviso to section 143(1) is bad in law as held in\nOnkar Society for Engineering & Technological Research [2024] 161

DAE (SABS) 10296 IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION), CIRLCE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the findings

DAE (SABS) LEASING IRELAND 43 DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX.CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the findings

SKY HIGH XLIII LEASING COMPANY LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) (1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\n\n63\nITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before