ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

TDS as per the directions given by the Coordinate Bench in earlier assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2005-06. Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. We order accordingly. ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. No. 259 & 260/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., 17. With regard to Ground No. 3 and 4 which are in respect of Enhanced claim of deduction

RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

TDS of Rs. 8,66,827/- and the advance tax paid amounting to Rs. 28,40,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 16.12.2022 passed by the ADIT/CPC, Bengaluru, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the intimation order on various grounds. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated

RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

TDS of Rs. 8,66,827/- and the advance tax paid amounting to Rs. 28,40,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 16.12.2022 passed by the ADIT/CPC, Bengaluru, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the intimation order on various grounds. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated

RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

TDS of Rs. 8,66,827/- and the advance tax paid amounting to Rs. 28,40,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 16.12.2022 passed by the ADIT/CPC, Bengaluru, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the intimation order on various grounds. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

TDS, as claimed by the assessee on loan advances is concerned, the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee, considering the order of the Tribunal for AY 2005-06, thus, allowed for statistical purposes.” 13. We observe that Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the ground raised by the assessee by following the decision of the ITAT

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

TDS, as claimed by the assessee on loan advances is concerned, the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee, considering the order of the Tribunal for AY 2005-06, thus, allowed for statistical purposes.” 13. We observe that Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the ground raised by the assessee by following the decision of the ITAT

ARNAV GRUH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Arnav Gruh Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaaca4900E ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-32, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

TDS of Rs. 2,55,738/- which is allowable in view of Hon’ble ITAT decision in the case of DCIT Cir- 3(1) vs. Narayani Ispat Kolkata ITA No. 2127/Kol/2014 AY 2010-11 date of order 30.08.2017 and in the case DCIT Vs. Techno Electronics Ltd current tax online. ITA No. 2338/M/2016 Author Shri. Saktijit Dey Hon’ble Member

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

167B r.w.s. 86 of the Act. A further without prejudice submission is that the company has substantial own funds by way of capital reserves aggregating Rs. 12,936 lacs which is more than 5.50 times of the balance in such JV / partnership firm. The sale proceeds of the appellant are deposited in the cash credit account and the debit balance

MOHAMMEDALLY NOORBHOY BANDUKWALLA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mohammedally Noorbhoy Bandukwalla Trust Bhiwandiwala Terrace, J S S Ito, Nfac Delhi Road, Next To Parsi Fire Temple, Estate, Delhi, Metro Cinema, Shop No. 1, Vs. Delhi-110002 Block A, 626 Dhobi Talao Marine Lines(E), Mumbai-400002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatm0718K Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal & Shri Om Kadalgaokar, Ars Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

TDS) of ₹1,03,784/- claiming refund of ₹1,370/-. 04. This return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act by passing intimation on 12 March 2016, wherein there is no addition to the total income of the assessee. Thus there was no adjustment u/s 143 (1) (a) of The Act. It was assessed

ASST CIT CEN CIR 25, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

section 80lA. As the assessee being directly under contract to the concern for the work done and also directly dealing with the Government on whose behalf the assessee are doing the work, they can be & CO No.9/15 considered as main contractors alongwith PEC and are not simply sub contractors vie-a-vis the work undertaken by them. As such