CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

14) to mean \"property of any kind held by an assessee\".\nIt is of the widest amplitude, and apparently covers all kinds of\nproperty except the property expressly excluded by clauses (i) to\n(iv)of the sub-section which, it will be seen, does not include good\nwill. But the definitions in section 2 are subject to an overall

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

TDS was deducted therefore the payments cannot be treated as brokerage income of the Assessee. The Assessee also claimed that the AO was orally requested to allow the Assessee to cross examine the Directors of VIPL or VPPL. However, the AO, without giving any opportunity to the Assessee to cross-examination has made the said addition. The Assessee before

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

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

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

14 A of the Act or in other words shall suffer disallowance u/s 14A of the Act being incurred in relation to earning of an income which does not form part of the total income of the taxpayer. We have observed that the assessee firm has relied upon following case laws: a) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Private Limited

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

14 A of the Act or in other words shall suffer disallowance u/s 14A of the Act being incurred in relation to earning of an income which does not form part of the total income of the taxpayer. We have observed that the assessee firm has relied upon following case laws: a) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Private Limited

TATA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2(3), MUMBAI

14,82,902/- under the `Head Office Expenses'.\nVide notice dated 26/12/2007, issued under Section 142(2) of\nthe Act the Appellant was required to explain the allowability of\nthe aforesaid expense. In response, vide letter dated\n28/12/2007, the Appellant submitted that the same were in the\nnature of normal business expenses incurred during the course\nof its business

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

iii), therefore, it's true nature is nothing but added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required to be deducted. to be deducted. 12. In the light of the overall discussion made hereinabove, we 2

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

14 M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., share exceeding such limit to any particular reinsurer, the insurer may seek the specific approval of the Authority giving reasons for such cession. (10) Every insurer shall offer an opportunity to other Indian insurers including the Indian Reinsurer to participate in its facultative and treaty surpluses before placement of such cessions outside

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

iii) of the Rules by taking an amount equal to ½ percent of the average value of investment. Here also according to learned Counsel of the assessee the CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that the disallowance made by AO at Rs.19,48,912/-. We have verified this fact and find Page 4 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock

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

iii) of the Rules by taking an amount equal to ½ percent of the average value of investment. Here also according to learned Counsel of the assessee the CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that the disallowance made by AO at Rs.19,48,912/-. We have verified this fact and find Page 4 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock

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

iii) of the Rules by taking an amount equal to ½ percent of the average value of investment. Here also according to learned Counsel of the assessee the CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that the disallowance made by AO at Rs.19,48,912/-. We have verified this fact and find Page 4 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock

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

iii) of the Rules by taking an amount equal to ½ percent of the average value of investment. Here also according to learned Counsel of the assessee the CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that the disallowance made by AO at Rs.19,48,912/-. We have verified this fact and find Page 4 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2) of the Rules. We find that it is the duty of the ld. AO to record objective satisfaction with cogent reasons as to why the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Without recording such objective satisfaction with cogent reasons, the ld. AO cannot proceed directly to apply the computation

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2) of the Rules. We find that it is the duty of the ld. AO to record objective satisfaction with cogent reasons as to why the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Without recording such objective satisfaction with cogent reasons, the ld. AO cannot proceed directly to apply the computation