TUTOR INVESTMENT& FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which, vide its order in ITA No. 6752/Mum/2017 dated 15.06.2018, upheld the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act.

TDS of Rs. 1,53,531/- without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. 3. The Appellant reserve the right to amend, alter on add to the grounds of appeal. 4.The ground of appeal is without prejudice to the other.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of the assessee

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

TDS. 15 In view of the above cited binding Judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court/Hon‟ble High Courts vis-à-vis the relevant facts of the case discussed hereto fore and also having regard to the plain and clear provisions of section 56

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

section 56(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.5.5 the following guiding factors laid down by various courts have been considered in concluding that the amounts received by assesse are taxable in the hands of assessee under the head income from the other sources: There must be an identification sources - Before a particular amount can be characterized as an income

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 28(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, we reject alternate findings of the A.O. to make additions. Hence, we direct the A.O. to delete additions of Rs. 43.50 crores made u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. 30. The next issue that came up for our consideration is addition made by the AO towards amount received from M/s SD Corporation

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SPECTRA REALTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

section 56(2)(viia), provision of rule 11UA are applicable and as per clause (c) of sub rule (1) of 11UA, no specific formula for the valuation of such shares is prescribed. The assesse has to obtain the valuation report from the CA or merchant banker. 10.7 In this case the appellant has obtained the valuation report from

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SOYUMM MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

section 56(2)(viia), provision of rule 11UA are applicable and as per clause (c) of sub rule (1) of 11UA, no specific formula for the valuation of such shares is prescribed. The assesse has to obtain the valuation report from the CA or merchant banker. 10.7 In this case the appellant has obtained the valuation report from

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS amount in the return of income amounting to Rs.2,56,71,805/ the return of income amounting to Rs.2,56,71,805/ the return of income amounting to Rs.2,56,71,805/- but offered less income for taxation. However the department is offered less income for taxation. However the department is offered less income for taxation. However the department

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS amount in the return of income amounting to Rs.2,56,71,805/ the return of income amounting to Rs.2,56,71,805/ the return of income amounting to Rs.2,56,71,805/- but offered less income for taxation. However the department is offered less income for taxation. However the department is offered less income for taxation. However the department

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

56(2) (x) (via) and 58(2) (xvii) (b) of the Act. 3.1.9 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in concluding that Chapter X of the Act is a separate code in itself and Section 92 of the Act is a separate charging provision. 3.1.10 on the facts

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

56(2) (x) (via) and 58(2) (xvii) (b) of the Act. 3.1.9 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in concluding that Chapter X of the Act is a separate code in itself and Section 92 of the Act is a separate charging provision. 3.1.10 on the facts

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

56(2) (x) (via) and 58(2) (xvii) (b) of the Act. 3.1.9 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in concluding that Chapter X of the Act is a separate code in itself and Section 92 of the Act is a separate charging provision. 3.1.10 on the facts

DADIBA KALI PUNDOLE ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEM TAX -17(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

56,60,000/- to the TDS credit of Rs. 12,25,000/- u/s 194Q were not reported by him. Therefore, it is evident that the TDS deducted by the buyer at the time of purchase of article through auction u/s 194Q are pertained to seller only. The details of the buyer and TDS deducted u/s 194Q are as under

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

TDS on the advances be allowed to the assessee in contravention to section 199(2) of the IT Act, 1961.since the advances pertaining thereto are not credited in the P&L A/c of the assessee in the FY under consideration” ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. No. 259 & 260/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., 55. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

TDS on the advances be allowed to the assessee in contravention to section 199(2) of the IT Act, 1961.since the advances pertaining thereto are not credited in the P&L A/c of the assessee in the FY under consideration” ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. No. 259 & 260/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., 55. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised

SWATI ATUL KADAKIA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleswati Atul Kadakia V. Income Tax Officer – 16(3)(1) Room No. 447 1302, Vasant Aradhana Tower Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpk8725D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56(2)(x)(b) because the sale consideration and all major terms and conditions for purchase of flat has been agreed by both the parties in December 2013. Further, it needs to be checked whether the consideration for the flat on the date of allotment is higher than the Stamp Duty value as on that date. In the event

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

56(2)(x) brought in the statute w.e.f. A.Y.2017-18 at the most. 27. In so far as the contention that the Section 2(19AA) has been violated by the assessee having failed to compensate preference share holders, we have already noted that assessee had not compensated preference share holders by issuing share of the assessee. However, the preference shareholders were

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

56(2)(x) brought in the statute w.e.f. A.Y.2017-18 at the most. 27. In so far as the contention that the Section 2(19AA) has been violated by the assessee having failed to compensate preference share holders, we have already noted that assessee had not compensated preference share holders by issuing share of the assessee. However, the preference shareholders were

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

section 194H of the Act, instead of\ndeduction made @2% u/s 194C of the Act, with respect to the following\n“commission payment” made to CFA agent”.\nFinancial Total Commission paid to | Total commission paid to\nYear\nCFA for OE sales\nCFA for MR sales\n2016-17 Rs.5,44,56,532/-\nRs.24,05,66,619/-\n5. The Assessee vide letters