THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

sections 28 to 43C, when there is no other activity or business carried on by the company, other than business of operating qualifying ships. In view of the above discussion, we allow ground no. 1 of the assessee," 15. As the ratio of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, (supra

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VAN OORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.K Aggarwal

TDS credit. In the return of income assessee computed its profit from the dredging activity on presumptive basis as per the provision of TTS. Though, the assessing officer had no dispute which regard to the fact that profit from dredging activity has to be computed under the TTS, however he made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer todetermine

M/S. VAN-OORD INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 5(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Raheja Towers, Opp. Sidbi, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach5430J ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

43C or even TTS. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating the fact that the assessee did not furnish the records and documents maintained for the expenses incurred for the Indian entity by VODMCBV despite this being a mandatory condition as provided

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 43C 0.0058 Crores Interest on delayed payment of TDS 0.1284 Crores Interest on Income Tax 0.0069 Crores Total 4.0572 Crores

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 43C 0.0058 Crores Interest on delayed payment of TDS 0.1284 Crores Interest on Income Tax 0.0069 Crores Total 4.0572 Crores

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

TDS and taxes paid by the assessee. Hence, learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was correct in not taking care of this issue. He declined to adjudicate merits of the issues raised. He referred to the earlier order of learned CIT(A) dated 30.1.2009, wherein learned CIT(A) has held that he agreed with

SWATI DHIRAJ SATRA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -27(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

TDS u/s 194C which the assessee had taken into consideration while arriving at tax liability. Except this one transaction there is no mismatch as shown in Form 26AS.” 4. Noticing that the above reply of the Assessee was not supported with any documentary evidences, the Assessing Officer issued another notice dated 13/08/2019 under section 142(1) of the Act, whereby

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

43C essentially deal with Business Income. Sections 30 to 38 deal with Deductions. Sections 40A and 43B deal with Business Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii), the assessee (firm

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

43C essentially deal with Business Income. Sections 30 to 38 deal with Deductions. Sections 40A and 43B deal with Business Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii), the assessee (firm

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

TDS was deductible u/s 194J of the Act. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd (supra), no doubt, the claim of the assessee is liable to be allowable, hence, we ordered ITA. No.2522/Mum/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 accordingly. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(2), MUMBAI vs. AZB AND PARTNERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS had been deducted by the entities of these countries and the assessee had claimed credit of Rs.79,78,570/- in the income-tax return filed in India. The AO was of the view that credit of such withholding tax was not allowable to the assessee in India as these receipts were not taxable in those countries. The AO also

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 16(2), MUMBAI vs. AZB AND PARTNERS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS had been deducted by the entities of these countries and the assessee had claimed credit of Rs.79,78,570/- in the income-tax return filed in India. The AO was of the view that credit of such withholding tax was not allowable to the assessee in India as these receipts were not taxable in those countries. The AO also

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act both under normal provisions of the Act\nas well as under the computation of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. We find\nthat the Id. CIT(A) had deleted the said disallowance by observing as under:-\n\"This is a matter arising for the first time in the case of assessee

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

section 80HHC /80HHE etc. there is\nspecific provision to exclude from the \"Profit of the Business\", the other\nincome such as commission, brokerage, interest, rent etc. However,\nthere is no specific exclusion while computing deduction under section\n10A/10AA/10B of the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions,\nit is clear that, what is exempted is not merely the profits

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 37(1), thereby accepting the submission that the brand is not owned by the assessee. The Id AR further presented same line of arguments to submit that the TPO is not correct in making any TP adjustment towards the notional fees on the brand that is not owned by the assessee, which the TPO held as to be received

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

43C amounting to Rs.23,55,014/ amounting to Rs.23,55,014/- is within the tolerance limit of ± 10% tolerance limit of ± 10% and therefore, said addition is not justified. and therefore, said addition is not justified. The differenc The difference between the stamp duty value and sale consideration of stock –in –trade of the stamp duty value and sale consideration

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

43C amounting to Rs.23,55,014/ amounting to Rs.23,55,014/- is within the tolerance limit of ± 10% tolerance limit of ± 10% and therefore, said addition is not justified. and therefore, said addition is not justified. The differenc The difference between the stamp duty value and sale consideration of stock –in –trade of the stamp duty value and sale consideration