DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

279 (P & H)\n22. The Ld. DR stands in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable\nto rebut by submitting any contrary judgment against the submission of the Ld. AR.\n23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on\nrecord. The assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act\namounting

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

279 ITR 372 (Ker), held that the entry would amount to an order under section 144. The mere fact that it was not communicated to the assessee would not make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

TDS as applicable. He placed \nreliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of HDFC Bank \nLtd. vs. DCIT [2015] 155 ITD 765 (Mum) for allowing the claim of \nassessee. He also took note of the fact about relief granted by ld. CIT(A) \nin assessee’s own case for Assessment Years

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS under section M/s. K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 194A - Held, yes [Para 12] [In favour of assessee] HIGH COURT OF Section 4 read with sections 2(28A) and BOMBAY 194A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - RupeshRashmi Income - Chargeable as (Interest on Kant Shah compensation) - Whether interest v. awarded on compensation in motor Union of India* accident claim

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS under section M/s. K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 194A - Held, yes [Para 12] [In favour of assessee] HIGH COURT OF Section 4 read with sections 2(28A) and BOMBAY 194A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - RupeshRashmi Income - Chargeable as (Interest on Kant Shah compensation) - Whether interest v. awarded on compensation in motor Union of India* accident claim

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

1 to section 115JB (2), is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section 14A read with rule 8D. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Special Bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to follow the decision of Vireet Investment Ltd. (supra) and pass the order for adjustment under section 115Jb of the Act accordingly

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

TDS compliance. The real issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is whether the provisions of section 11 is applicable and in the subsequent proceedings, the Assessing Officer has verified the allowability of the rent and he has not properly verified the same. In our view, the venturing in the subsequent proceedings are beyond the scope of the grounds

RACKSPACE, US INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

279, 007, 037 vide direction dated 28.12.2015, 21.02.2017, 15.09.2016. The Assessments were framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)-Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai (in short ‘DCIT/AO’) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 vide order dated 15.01.2016, 07.11.2016, 08.12.2016 under section 144C(5) read with section 143(3) of the Income

RACKSPACE, US INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

279, 007, 037 vide direction dated 28.12.2015, 21.02.2017, 15.09.2016. The Assessments were framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)-Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai (in short ‘DCIT/AO’) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 vide order dated 15.01.2016, 07.11.2016, 08.12.2016 under section 144C(5) read with section 143(3) of the Income

RASKSPACE US INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

279, 007, 037 vide direction dated 28.12.2015, 21.02.2017, 15.09.2016. The Assessments were framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)-Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai (in short ‘DCIT/AO’) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 vide order dated 15.01.2016, 07.11.2016, 08.12.2016 under section 144C(5) read with section 143(3) of the Income

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

279. Relevant findings of the High Court while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee were as follows: “10. So far as the next question is concerned, we find that the amalgamated company claimed relief under section 80J for the period from 1-1-1975 to 31-3- 1975. This relief was refused by the ITO on the ground

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

279. Relevant findings of the High Court while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee were as follows: “10. So far as the next question is concerned, we find that the amalgamated company claimed relief under section 80J for the period from 1-1-1975 to 31-3- 1975. This relief was refused by the ITO on the ground

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

279. Relevant findings of the High Court while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee were as follows: “10. So far as the next question is concerned, we find that the amalgamated company claimed relief under section 80J for the period from 1-1-1975 to 31-3- 1975. This relief was refused by the ITO on the ground

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

279. Relevant findings of the High Court while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee were as follows: “10. So far as the next question is concerned, we find that the amalgamated company claimed relief under section 80J for the period from 1-1-1975 to 31-3- 1975. This relief was refused by the ITO on the ground