VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest the assessee

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest the assessee

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the Assessing Officer shall serve

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS OF ERSTWHILE ING VYSYA BANK LTD.),MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR. - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the Assessing Officer shall serve

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT TDS 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

264 ITR 506 (Mad) and it was held to be binding on the Departmental authorities. Accordingly, it has been explained that in view of the Circular of CBDT dated 17.05.1978 (supra), which specifically provides that no TDS is required to be made in respect of payment of stake money, the Assessing Officer is not right in treating the assessee

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), i. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), j. Agricultural

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), i. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), j. Agricultural

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

264 is that while the former can be invoked to remove the prejudice caused to the State the later can be invoked to remove the prejudice caused to the assessee. The provisions of section 263 would loose significance if they were to be interpreted in a manner that prevented the Commissioner from revising the erroneous order passed by the Assessing

RAKHI A SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. CIT -11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Before Before Shri Shri Sanjay Garg, Shri Sanjay Garg, Sanjay Gargsanjay Garg & And & Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Ashwani Taneja, , , Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2965 & 2966/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / / / / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ms.Rakhi Sawant, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), , M/S Chandravijay Shah & Vs. Room No. 438, 4Th Floor, Co., Aayakar Bhavan, Chartered Accountant, M K Road, 401, Rainbow Chambers, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Nr. Mtnl, Kandivili (W), Mumbai-400067 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aumps5377C अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri A K Srivastava सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश / O R D E R / O R D E R / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Above Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No.2966/Mum/2013. 3. This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order

264 (Madras); C) Madhu Dadha V/s ACIT (317 ITR 458) (Mad); D) Union of India V/s Tata Yodogawa Ltd 1988 (38) ELT 739; and E) J B Advani and Co Ltd V/s CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). 6. From the above pleadings, we do not find any plausible reasons to justify the long delay of 704 days for filing

RAKHI A SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Before Before Shri Shri Sanjay Garg, Shri Sanjay Garg, Sanjay Gargsanjay Garg & And & Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Ashwani Taneja, , , Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2965 & 2966/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / / / / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ms.Rakhi Sawant, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), , M/S Chandravijay Shah & Vs. Room No. 438, 4Th Floor, Co., Aayakar Bhavan, Chartered Accountant, M K Road, 401, Rainbow Chambers, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Nr. Mtnl, Kandivili (W), Mumbai-400067 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aumps5377C अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri A K Srivastava सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश / O R D E R / O R D E R / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Above Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No.2966/Mum/2013. 3. This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order

264 (Madras); C) Madhu Dadha V/s ACIT (317 ITR 458) (Mad); D) Union of India V/s Tata Yodogawa Ltd 1988 (38) ELT 739; and E) J B Advani and Co Ltd V/s CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). 6. From the above pleadings, we do not find any plausible reasons to justify the long delay of 704 days for filing

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the Assessing Officer shall serve

ACIT-35(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. HIMANSHU CHAKRAWARTI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri N. K. Pradhanacit- 35(1), Shri Himanshu Chakrawarti, Room No.902, 9Th Floor, 2207/2208, Ashok Towers, Kautilya Bhawan, G. Block, Tower ‘D’, Dr. S. S. Rao Bkc, Bandra(E), Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Mumbai-400051. Pan: Acgpc5033K Appellant Respondent : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Appellant By Revenue By : Shri Dr. K. Shivaram With Shri Rahul Hakani (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2021 Order

section 54 of the Act in regard to purchase of house by assessee i.e. residential house at Crescent Bay project at the cost of Rs. 5.45 crores. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim to the extent of Rs. 37,80,170/- invested in purchase of flat at Nirala Nagar, Lucknow by observing as under: The assessee deducted the amount

PIEM HOTELS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above\nterms

264 or an order of the Settlement\nCommission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the\namount on which interest was payable under sub-\nsection (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case\nmay be, the interest shall be increased or reduced\naccordingly, and in a case where the interest is\nreduced, the Assessing Officer shall serve

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

264 or an\norder of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of\nsection 245D, the amount on which interest was payable\nunder sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the\ncase may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced\naccordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the\nAssessing Officer shall serve

DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1290 To 1302 & 1303 To 1308/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

264&266/MUM/2017, ITA Nos. 269& 270/MUM/2017 & ITA Nos. 272&273/MUM/2017 pertains to four different assessment years namely, assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17 and the grievance is against the similarly worded multiple orders of the CIT(A), which in turn arise from the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 195(2) of the Income

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1290 To 1302 & 1303 To 1308/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

264&266/MUM/2017, ITA Nos. 269& 270/MUM/2017 & ITA Nos. 272&273/MUM/2017 pertains to four different assessment years namely, assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17 and the grievance is against the similarly worded multiple orders of the CIT(A), which in turn arise from the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 195(2) of the Income

ACIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 195 and accordingly no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(i). 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in respect of contribution of Rs. 10,00,00,000 to SBI Retired Employees Medical Benefit Fund. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Cochin Tribunal in the case