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

7 of\n1913);\nor\n(2) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, or any part thereof,\nbefore the commencement of the Jammu and Kashmir\n(Extension of Laws) Act, 1956 (62 of 1956), insofar as banking,\ninsurance and financial corporations are concerned, and before\nthe commencement of the Central Laws (Extension to Jammu &\nKashmir

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

2 0 1 7 provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The assessee revised its return of income on 29.3.2014 declaring the same income under the normal provisions as well as under section 115JB of the Act as the original return with only making higher claim of TDS

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

7 of Section 101A of the Insurance Act cannot be treated as a ―pronoun‖ or a ―noun‖ and should be read as a ―verb‖. This is more so because, there is no separate definition provided for ―other 17 M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer‖ and considering the scheme of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, ―other insurer‖ should

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

7. Further Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee why the definition to amended section 2(15) vide Finance Act, 2008 be applicable to the case of the assessee. 8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith

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

7. Further Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee why the definition to amended section 2(15) vide Finance Act, 2008 be applicable to the case of the assessee. 8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith

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

7. Further Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee why the definition to amended section 2(15) vide Finance Act, 2008 be applicable to the case of the assessee. 8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith

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

7. Further Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee why the definition to amended section 2(15) vide Finance Act, 2008 be applicable to the case of the assessee. 8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith

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

7. Further Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee why the definition to amended section 2(15) vide Finance Act, 2008 be applicable to the case of the assessee. 8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act with respect to transaction charges paid to National Stock Exchange for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194J of the Act by holding that the payments are in the nature of technical services. Now, this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Securities

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act with respect to transaction charges paid to National Stock Exchange for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194J of the Act by holding that the payments are in the nature of technical services. Now, this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Securities

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act with respect to transaction charges paid to National Stock Exchange for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194J of the Act by holding that the payments are in the nature of technical services. Now, this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Securities

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act with respect to transaction charges paid to National Stock Exchange for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194J of the Act by holding that the payments are in the nature of technical services. Now, this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Securities

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

M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMIITED ,MUMBSI vs. DY CIT(APPEAL)-RANGE-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

TDS as claimed by the appellant in its return of income. return of income. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I, II, III AND VI AS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I, II, III AND VI AS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I, II, III AND VI AS MENTIONED ABOVE: MENTIONED ABOVE: GROUND NO. VI: DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10AA OF GROUND NO. VI: DEDUCTION

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

7. In the light of the above precedent, we deem it proper to discuss the relevant provisions of Income discuss the relevant provisions of Income-tax Act. tax Act. 7.1 Section 2(28A) of the Income 7.1 Section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act has defined tax Act has defined the term "interest" as follows: "Section 2(28A) : "interest

THE INDIAN MERCHANTS CHAMBERS,,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4076/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) The Indian Merchants Chambers, Vs. Ddit(Exemption)-Ii(1), Imc Building, Imc Marg, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400020 Parel, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati 00047 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.S.Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/ 06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Basically Aggrieved For Decline Of Exemption U/S.11 On The Plea That Proviso To Section 2(15) Was Applicable To The Assessee Which Was Introduced W.E.F. Assessment Year 2009-2010. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Registered As A Company U/S.25 Of The Companies Act, 1956. The Main Objects Of The Assessee Trust Inter Alia Are To Promote, Advance & Protect Trade, Commerce & Industry In India. The Ao Held That The Assessee Was Not Imparting Education In Pursuance Of Its Objects. He Held That The Activity Of Organizing Seminars, The Definition Of Education. The Assessee Was Running Certain Seminars

section 2(15) of the Act without appreciating the basic principle laid down by the Court based on the facts of the case. 7. That on the acts and the circumstances of the case of the appellant the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the TDS

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

7 dated 16.07.2013 as well as Circular No. 01/2013 dated 17.01.2013 which appear to be conflicting and contradictory to each other; in the former Circular the provision, i.e., Section 10A is referred to as providing for deductions whereas the later Circular uses the expression “exemption” while referring to the provisions of Sections 10A and 10B of the Act. Even

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

7 dated 16.07.2013 as well as Circular No. 01/2013 dated 17.01.2013 which appear to be conflicting and contradictory to each other; in the former Circular the provision, i.e., Section 10A is referred to as providing for deductions whereas the later Circular uses the expression “exemption” while referring to the provisions of Sections 10A and 10B of the Act. Even