IDBI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

35D, the assessing officer concluded that there must be extension of undertaking or setting up of a new unit. The assessee has not furnished supported documentary evidence to show that increase in paid a share capital were for extension of undertaking or setting up of new units. Before learned CIT(A) the assessee furnished the details of setting

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

35D and the\narguments of both the parties, we are of the view that there are no change in\nthe facts as in the last 7 years and, therefore, relying upon the decision of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321,\nit would not be at all appropriate to allow

M/S PODDAR FININ CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

35D loss to be carried forward was claimed of Rs.87,178/-. The appellant company collected the share premium of Rs.4,93,50,000/- from five parties i.e. namely M/s Matrix Systel P. Ltd., M/s. Kumaon Engg. Co. P. Ltd., M/s JMD Sounds Ltd. & M/s. Nimidhi Consultants P. Ltd. The assessee was asked to substantiate the claim but no explanation

ADDL CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

TDS certificates and hence the same was to be disallowed. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that the FCCBs are in the nature of debentures and unsecured loans and hence the expenditure incurred for issue of FCCBs is allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. 11.3 Before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee reiterated the facts

RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

TDS certificates and hence the same was to be disallowed. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that the FCCBs are in the nature of debentures and unsecured loans and hence the expenditure incurred for issue of FCCBs is allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. 11.3 Before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee reiterated the facts

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

35D of the Act. Act. WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: M/s Yes Bank Ltd. ITA Nos.3501 & 3239/M/2018 GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES

DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

35D of the Act. Act. WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: M/s Yes Bank Ltd. ITA Nos.3501 & 3239/M/2018 GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES

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

TDS Certificates furnished by the Appellant while making the\nadditions. On perusal of material on record we find that neither\nthe Appellant had filed any confirmation from TTSL nor had the\nAssessing Officer called for any information/detail from TTSL in\nthis regard despite the fact that the Appellant had taken a\n34\nposition that no such income had accrued

RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

TDS certificates and hence the same was to be disallowed. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that the FCCBs are in the nature of debentures and unsecured loans and hence the expenditure incurred for issue of FCCBs is allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. 11.3 Before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee reiterated the facts

ADDL CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

TDS certificates and hence the same was to be disallowed. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that the FCCBs are in the nature of debentures and unsecured loans and hence the expenditure incurred for issue of FCCBs is allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. 11.3 Before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee reiterated the facts

ALLY PHARMA OPTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Ally Pharma Options P. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Tax, 301, 3Rd Floor, Circle-8(1), Maxheal House, Vs. Room No.210/260, A, 2Nd Floor, Bangur Nagar, Goregaon W, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 090 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaeca 0450D Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ishwar Prakash Rathi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Alok Johari, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016 O R D E R

section 35D of the Act. Regarding the other disallowances, the Ld. A.R. has stated that the amounts involved in relation to those disallowances are very small and there was no intention of the assessee to avoid any tax liability in this regard. The disallowance on account of donation inadvertently could not be added back in 3 M/s. Ally Pharma Options

COASTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 2298/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, The Income Tax Officer 34, Sant Tukaram Road, 6(2)(1), फनाभ/ Carnac Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400009 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी की ओय से / Applicant By : Shri Farrokh V Irani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 15.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated25.2.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against Upholding The Order Of Assessing Officer As Regards Interest Income From Securities Deposited With Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd (Hereinafter Referred To As Pgvcl) For Availing Electricity For The Purposes Of Construction Of Power

35D - Held, yes” 12. Positive Packaging Industries Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 125 ITD 212 (MUM.) “Section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from other sources - Chargeable as - Assessment year 1996-97 - Assessee-company was 14 to set-up a factory for manufacturing flexible packaging material - It applied for a loan from IDBI - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

35D of the Act in respect of stamping charges paid on further issue of shares. 6.1. In view of the statement made by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant, under instructions, that the Assessee does not wish to pursue this ground on account of insignificant amount involved, Ground No. IV raised by the Assessee is dismissed as not pressed

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

35D of the Act in respect of stamping charges paid on further issue of shares. 6.1. In view of the statement made by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant, under instructions, that the Assessee does not wish to pursue this ground on account of insignificant amount involved, Ground No. IV raised by the Assessee is dismissed as not pressed

KULODAY TECHNOPACK P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

TDS liabilities, raised upon the assessee was not enforceable. Ratio laid down in Ramkrishna Vedanta Math v. ITO (ITA No.477/Kol/2012) order dated 31/07/2012 by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal supports our view. We note that the freight charges, detention charges and de-stuffing charges, etc. were paid to foreign lines or to their agents or shipping lines for transportation

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years are partly

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Years: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Leasing & Income Tax-Range 10(1) Financial Services Limited बनाम/ Mumbai The Il&Fs Financial Center Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F Assessment Years: 2005-06 Infrastructure Leasing & Addl. Commissioner Of Financial Services Limited Income Tax-Range 10(1) बनाम/ The Il&Fs Financial Center Mumbai Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F Assessment Years: 2006-07 Addl. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Leasing & Income Tax-Range 10(1) Financial Services Limited बनाम/ Mumbai The Il&Fs Financial Center Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F

35D of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the disallowance of Rs.2,42,900/- is not justified and be deleted. 15. The Learned Commr. Of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B. On the facts & circumstances of the case the appellant denies the liability for payment of interest u/s 234B. The appellant prays that they

VKS PROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 35D(2)(c)(iv) of the Act and further, the funds raised by the assessee are for long term objectives and that the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction u/s 35D of the Act over a period of 5 years. The assessee’s claim of the entire expenses amounting to Rs.1,95,00,000/- was rejected

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

35D of the Act.” 7. Respectfully following the above decisions and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1997-98 is respectfully followed, ground raised by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.” Following the decision of the ITAT this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Ground No.2: Deduction allowed in respect of sale