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

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS on reinsurance premium paid to non residents and hence action of the AO to disallow the same under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is accordingly upheld. Ground 2 and 3 of the appellant is hereby dismissed.‖ 3.16. We find that the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid case had held that definition in Section 2

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

17 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.2.52 crs to acquire the membership of the BSE, which will be the original cost of membership. Similarly, section 2(42A) explanation 1(i) sub clause (ha) provides that in case of a capital asset being equity

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

17 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.2.52 crs to acquire the membership of the BSE, which will be the original cost of membership. Similarly, section 2(42A) explanation 1(i) sub clause (ha) provides that in case of a capital asset being equity

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

17 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.2.52 crs to acquire the membership of the BSE, which will be the original cost of membership. Similarly, section 2(42A) explanation 1(i) sub clause (ha) provides that in case of a capital asset being equity

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

17 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.2.52 crs to acquire the membership of the BSE, which will be the original cost of membership. Similarly, section 2(42A) explanation 1(i) sub clause (ha) provides that in case of a capital asset being equity

JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

TDS refund of Rs. 1,05,613/- against the Appellant: against the Appellant: 1. A sum of Rs. 17,61,379/ A sum of Rs. 17,61,379/- under section 11(1 )(a) of the under section 11(1 )(a) of the Act Act Act being being being amount amount amount accumulated accumulated accumulated

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

2(28A) of the Income-tax Act. 8. The provisions of section 194A reads as follows : 8. The provisions of section 194A reads as follows : 8. The provisions of section 194A reads as follows :— "194A. Interest other than "Interest on securities". "194A. Interest other than "Interest on securities". "194A. Interest other than "Interest on securities".—(1) Any persons. Not being

ACIT (TDS -2(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. SULA VINEYARDS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit (Tds)-2(2), Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 322, Mtnl Office, 901, Hubtown Solaries, N.S. Cumballa Hill, Vs. Phadke Marg, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400029. Pan No. Aabcn 7126 Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Singh, Ar Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2022

TDS)-2(2), Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 322, MTNL Office, 901, Hubtown Solaries, N.S. Cumballa Hill, Vs. Phadke Marg, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400029. PAN No. AABCN 7126 Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR Assessee by : Mr. Niraj Singh, AR Date of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 16/09/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

section 124 of the Act. We find that 20 M/s. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd. additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is not sustainable, hence dismissed. 15. As Additional Ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed as the same is not sustainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed (supra

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

2,24,238/- on account of administrative expenditure total amounting to Rs. 17,65,069/-.3.3 On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 4 Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the interest income of the assessee is more than the interest expenditure; therefore, no disallowance

BOMBAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17) of the income\nTax Act r.w.s.2(26) which defines company\" to mean a company formed\nand registered under the Companies Act, 1956, does not meet the\nrequirement of being a company in the case of assessee bank, because the\nIndian company has to be formed and registered under the Companies Act.\nNotwithstanding that Section 11 of the Acquisition

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS arises under the IT Act only if the amount due and payable assumes the nature of payment specified under Chapter XVII-B thereof. 13. Even assuming specific cases of payment under Chapter XVII-B of the IT Act are considered, Sections 193 and 194A of the IT Act deals with provisions relating to deduction of tax at source