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

19. According to us, there is no conflict between two provisions of sections i.e. section 50 and 55(2)(ab) of the Act. The provision of section 50 of the Act will not apply to these two twin rights i.e. (i) the right to participate in the ownership of assets of the stock exchange by issuance of shares

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

19. According to us, there is no conflict between two provisions of sections i.e. section 50 and 55(2)(ab) of the Act. The provision of section 50 of the Act will not apply to these two twin rights i.e. (i) the right to participate in the ownership of assets of the stock exchange by issuance of shares

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

19. According to us, there is no conflict between two provisions of sections i.e. section 50 and 55(2)(ab) of the Act. The provision of section 50 of the Act will not apply to these two twin rights i.e. (i) the right to participate in the ownership of assets of the stock exchange by issuance of shares

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

19. According to us, there is no conflict between two provisions of sections i.e. section 50 and 55(2)(ab) of the Act. The provision of section 50 of the Act will not apply to these two twin rights i.e. (i) the right to participate in the ownership of assets of the stock exchange by issuance of shares

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

TDS was required to be deducted. to be deducted. 12. In the light of the overall discussion made hereinabove, we 2. In the light of the overall discussion made hereinabove, we 2. In the light of the overall discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that the impugned payment had a direct link are of the view that

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

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

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

19 M/s. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd. consideration and have regard to the four-fold criteria namely, territorial area; persons or classes of persons; incomes or classes of income; and cases or classes of cases. Thus, the Act does not authoritatively confer exclusive jurisdiction to specific Income-tax Authority. It is left to the Board to issue directions for exercise

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

19 above.\nThis Circular takes note of the judgment of this Court in\nNawanshahar case wherein it is held that investments made\nby a banking concern are part of the business or banking.\nTherefore, the income arises from such investments is\nattributable to business of banking falling under the head\n18\n'profits and gains of business and profession

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

TDS returns, service tax and other related work. This activity is in pursuance of Object no. 21 of the appellant; namely "to do all such other things as may be necessary for or incidental or conducive to the extension of trade, commerce or manufacture, or the attainment of objects. c. Labour advisory Fees —Rs. 21,91,605/- The appellant

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

19 “2. The true and correct meaning and effect of the provisions of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is the principal issue arising for determination of the Court. At the outset, it must be made clear that the decision of this Court with regard to the provisions of Section

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

19 “2. The true and correct meaning and effect of the provisions of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is the principal issue arising for determination of the Court. At the outset, it must be made clear that the decision of this Court with regard to the provisions of Section