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

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

SHARAD SEVANTILAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(6), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii).\"\n3. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee had\npaid first instalment of the sale consideration of Rs.54,00,000/- on 27th\nMay, 2015 after deducting TDS

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

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)

vii) cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee being a company and provision which probably might cover such situation is under section 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

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)

vii) cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee being a company and provision which probably might cover such situation is under section 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

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

56. The above submissions were also made before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. However, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has objected to the said submission on the ground that w.e.f. 01.04.2008, the provisions of s. 195 had undergone some changes according to which, it is not in discretion of the assessee or its chartered

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on\nthis issue is deleted. As a result, Ground No.5, raised in assessee's appeal, is\nallowed.\n40. Ground No.6, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the applicability\nof the provisions of section 115-JB of the Act to the assessee bank.\n41. During the hearing

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)

TDS, Service tax etc payable for sale/purchase of property.  Stamp Duty and Registration charges will be borne by buyer only.  This option letter is signed by Director of Shivam Megastructures on one side and Appellant and her husband on other side stating "I accept & confirm the above terms and conditions."  The above facts show that as per the above option

BLOOM PACKAGING P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

56(2)(vii) of the act; and (d) eventually whole scheme of transfer of shares of UPL/UEL to NCPL and ultimately to the holding company constitutes a case of colourable device. In the process, CIT(A) rejected the assessee‟s claim of „transfer agreement‟ as „gift agreement‟ and eventually rejected to applicability of the provisions of section 47(iii) which

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. BRIGGS TRADING CO, P. LTD, MUMBAI

TDS certificate to\nthe assessee company.\n\nAfter A.Y. 2002-03, assessee company came to know that DSHPL\nis in critical condition. Now the question arises:\n\n(i)\nWhether the assessee entered into any agreement with the\nDSHPL before giving loan to them.\nii)\nWhether the assessee had analysed the creditworthiness of\nDSHPL by examining

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

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee under section 3 under section 36(1)(vii