SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

164/-under section 144 for earning tax free\nincome. The assessee in appeal has contended that no disallowance under\nsection 144 of the Act is warranted as tax free income has been earned on\nshares/stock held as 'stock-n-trade'. In so far as contention of the assessee that\nshares/bonds on which tax free income has been earned are held

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

164/-under section 144 for earning tax free\nincome. The assessee in appeal has contended that no disallowance under\nsection 144 of the Act is warranted as tax free income has been earned on\nshares/stock held as 'stock-n-trade'. In so far as contention of the assessee that\nshares/bonds on which tax free income has been earned are held

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

164/-under section 144 for earning tax free\nincome. The assessee in appeal has contended that no disallowance under\nsection 144 of the Act is warranted as tax free income has been earned on\nshares/stock held as 'stock-n-trade'. In so far as contention of the assessee that\nshares/bonds on which tax free income has been earned are held

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

164/-under section 144 for earning tax free\nincome. The assessee in appeal has contended that no disallowance under\nsection 144 of the Act is warranted as tax free income has been earned on\nshares/stock held as 'stock-n-trade'. In so far as contention of the assessee that\nshares/bonds on which tax free income has been earned are held

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

TDS is required to be withheld on the same. 8.2 In the written submission dated 16 December 2016, it is contended as under: "Barclays Capital. ;i division of Barclays Bank Ple. UK (Barclays UK) manages the global derivatives operations of the Barclays group. The derivative products offered to clients typically include foreign exchange, interest rate and equity. The remittance made

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 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

164 (AP), wherein it stands clarified that the income to accrue or arise in India, it is not necessary that the service should be rendered in India, i.e., in the territorial jurisdiction of India, and it would be sufficient if the services are utilized in India. In fact, the nomenclature ‘commission’ is misleading, and the services qualify as fees

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

164 (AP), wherein it stands clarified that the income to accrue or arise in India, it is not necessary that the service should be rendered in India, i.e., in the territorial jurisdiction of India, and it would be sufficient if the services are utilized in India. In fact, the nomenclature ‘commission’ is misleading, and the services qualify as fees

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 254 (2B) to the asseseee and revenue be directed by exercising your judicial power to give the appeal effect to your honours order dated 14.01.2019 immediately within the specified time so that in future none of the revenue officer dare to disregard the order passed by the Appellate authority including the order of this temple of justice on which