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

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

CHIMERA INDUSTRIAL AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms\ndiscussed above

TDS\nd) Incorrect levy of interest under section 234B of the Act.\n\n2\nChimera Industrial & Development Pvt. Ltd.\nIn AY 2016-17, the assessee has raised a ground challenging the action of Ld\nCIT(A) in not granting video conference hearing facility. However, at the time\nof hearing, the Ld A.R did not press this ground.\n3.\nWe shall

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

438, the departmental authorities were not justified in adding back the amount of the balance of the profits. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corporation of India (supra) takes care of all the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 1,91,33,945/- and allow

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

438, the departmental authorities were not justified in adding back the amount of the balance of the profits. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corporation of India (supra) takes care of all the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 1,91,33,945/- and allow

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

438.\n\n25.3 The learned PCIT erred in not appreciating\nthat above provision in the nature of ascertained\nliability and hence is allowable as a deduction.\n\nAdditions under MAT provisions\n\n26. MAT not applicable to the Bank\n\n26.1 The learned PCIT erred in holding that\nprovisions of section 115JB are applicable to the\nBank without appreciating that

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS J M MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

438/- under section 14A made by the AO. 5. (i) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,72,51,564/- made u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of Transaction charges, leaseline charges. VSAT charges including WAN & TWS paid to Stock Exchange respectively, without

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

438/- under section 14A made by the AO. 5. (i) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,72,51,564/- made u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of Transaction charges, leaseline charges. VSAT charges including WAN & TWS paid to Stock Exchange respectively, without

OWENS CORNING INSULATING SYSTEMS CANADA LP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS u/s.192B. We further notice that the reimbursement of expenses towards insurance, travelling expenses of the visiting employees is a cost to cost reimbursement with no element of income. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and also the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal we hold that the reimbursement towards

M/S. JAI CORP LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Jai Corp Limited Asst. Director Of Income Tax 11 & 12 B Mittal Tower, Free (Cpc) Bangalore Vs. Press Journal Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacj2591A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajesh P Shah Revenue By : Shri Sunny Mathews, Ar Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2023

section 438 merely on account of presentational changes in income tax return and tax audit report without appreciating the fact that such payments were actually made during the year and allowable u/s 438, thus such disallowance is bad in law. 4. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred

M/S. JAI CORP LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Jai Corp Limited Asst. Director Of Income Tax 11 & 12 B Mittal Tower, Free (Cpc) Bangalore Vs. Press Journal Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacj2591A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajesh P Shah Revenue By : Shri Sunny Mathews, Ar Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2023

section 438 merely on account of presentational changes in income tax return and tax audit report without appreciating the fact that such payments were actually made during the year and allowable u/s 438, thus such disallowance is bad in law. 4. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred

DCIT - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO .LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.3151 & 3149/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3(2)(2) M/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K Road, New India Assurance Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 87, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai -400 001

438, the departmental authorities were not justified in adding back the amount of the balance of the profits. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corporation of India (supra) takes care of all the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue. We, therefore, delete A.Y 2012-13 and A.Y 2013- 14 – ITA No. 3151 & 3149/Mum/2018

EXPRESS GLOBAL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

438/-. The copies of the TDS certificates were submitted to the AO vide letter dated 17th September, 2009 (As attached on page no. 02) .The Original TDS certificates amounting to Rs.89,44,765/- were submitted to the AO vide letter dated 27th June,2013 (As attached on Page No. 03). 6.2 In the Intimation u/s 143 (1) (As attached

SHAJU RAMAN ARANGATH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

TDS Statement – payment made to 1,894 non-residents (Section 195) Total 23,70,438 4. The ld. AO issued

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD. WHICH STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS IDEA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE- 5 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TDS on Discount extended to prepaid distributors 68,19,45,415 (iv) Disallowance of depreciation on 261,29,65,700 spectrum fees (v) On account of payment to IBM 14,66,83,051 (vi) Less: Allowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for amount paid u/s 201(1) as per the direction of DRP (-)15,00,00,000 730,66,64,771 Taxable

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TDS on Discount extended to prepaid distributors Penalty payment DoT disallowed under 7,54,000 Section 37(1) Disallowance of depreciation on spectrum 4,08,01,38,956 fees Total Disallowances 9,62,14,04,426 Taxable income under the head business or 2,16,66,85,561 profession Income from Other Sources (as per revised computation) Interest on fixed

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS as per the provision of section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS as per the provision of section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS as per the provision of section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender