KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

TDS on\nadvertisement and sales promotion are concerned leading to disallowance of the entire\namount of Rs. 22.48 crores under section 40(a)(ia), the same was also subject to scrutiny\nby the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. In fact, the tax audit report\nsubmitted along with return of income clearly brings out the fact that where

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 24(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

56(2)(x) under the head of "Income from other Sources" of the Act by the AO and the addition of Rs. 1,88,75,500/- was deleted by CIT(A)." 2 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

x Note: The Central Board of Direct Taxes empowers the Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation or the concerned Directors of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing) to distribute the working amongst the Transfer Pricing Officers working under then while exercising their powers and performing theirs functions.” A perusal of the above notification would show that the Board in exercise

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)

x) Capital expenditures requirements based on Management's plans and projections etc. The three methods which are commonly used in this kind of a valuation of shares are: (a) The Profit Earning Capacity Value (PECV) Method, which presumes the continuity of business and uses the past earnings and futures projections to arrive at an estimate of future maintainable profits. These

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

section 58(4) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we would like to place on record, the elaborate arguments advanced by the counsels of both the sides with regard to the impugned issues in dispute. This Bench deems

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

56 ITR 77 (SC) and Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) laid down the following principles:- "(i) if income of an assessee is derived from various heads of income, he is entitled to claim deduction admissible under the respective head whether or not computation under each head results in taxable income; (ii) if income of an assessee arises under

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

x) and 36(1) (va) of the Act.\nd. Amendment to the provisions of Sec.36 (1) (va) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2021 is\napplicable from assessment year 2020-21 onwards and thus, payments made to\nemployees' contribution to LWF beyond due date specified under the respective Act, but\nwithin due date for filing of return of income

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, the Dy. CIT had passed an order under section 154 of the Act (see pages 3-5 of Factual paper book-1). 4 25.08.2003 The Dy. CIT issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, selecting the Assessee’s ROI for scrutiny (see page 6 of Factual paper book-1). 5 17.10.2003 The Addl. CIT (Transfer Pricing

DHANVARSHA NAGRI SAHAKARI PATASANTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

Accordingly, in view of paragraph 10 to 15 above, disallowance of INR.32,63,969/- is deleted and claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act as made by the Appellant is allowed

Bench: the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the

56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 13,94,486/- paid to Pigmy Deposit Collectors u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194H without looking at the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court's decision in case of CIT v. Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari

ACIT CENT. CIR5(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. INFINITE BUILDCON PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. Facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is a private limited company and it has derived income from house property and 2 M/s. Infinite Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. business. The nature of business carried on by the assessee is of financing and brokerage. 4. The first issue relates to deletion

DHANVARSHA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n4.\nCIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the\nAO of Rs. 13,94,486/- paid to Pigmy Deposit Collectors u/s\n40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194H without looking\nat the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court's decision in case of\nCIT v. Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS.\nThe assessee further submitted that one more advance of Rs.1.61 crores was paid on\n14.08.2015 by the assessee and the balance amount of Rs.1 crore was sourced by\nthe assessee through Housing Loan from HDFC Bank. The assessee also submitted\nthat since the seller had some technical issues in getting the original documents\nfrom the Bank there was delay

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee for all the years\nunder consideration stands allowed

2-3 of CIT appeal order 2011-12\nS.No.\nName of Unit\nPlace\nActivity\n1.\nSt. Joseph's Convent\nBandra\nPreprimary, high school,\nboarding school\n2.\nSt. Joseph's Convent\nPrimary Section\nBandra\nPrimary School\n3.\nPriti Sagar Collem/\nTilamol\nGOA\nPrimary,\nFormal\nEducation\n4.\nSacred Heart Convent\nHubli\nPre Primary, Primary,\nHigh School\n5.\nHoly Family Convent\nIgatpuri