SAROVAR HOTELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7348/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sarovar Hotels Dcit Circle 3(3), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th P.Ltd 42 Mittal बिधम/ Fl., R. No. 609, M. K. Chambers, Nariman Vs. Road, Point, Mumbai- 400 Mumbai-400 020 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No.Aaacs8083L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

TDS. The revised return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 30-03-2013 and refund of Rs. 81,78,550/- was issued. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and were served on the assessee. 4. The A.O observed that the assessee

DCIT-15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S KELLOGG INDIA PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS in terms of provisions of Section 10(6A). CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that provisions of 10(6A

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 PAN – AAACA3622K Assessee by : Shri Fenil Bhatt a/w Shri Harshad Panchal Revenue by : Shri Vachashpati Tripathi Date of Hearing – 01/02/2024 Date of Order – 08/03/2024 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present cross-appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19/02/2019, passed under section

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 PAN – AAACA3622K Assessee by : Shri Fenil Bhatt a/w Shri Harshad Panchal Revenue by : Shri Vachashpati Tripathi Date of Hearing – 01/02/2024 Date of Order – 08/03/2024 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present cross-appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19/02/2019, passed under section

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

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

ARNAV GRUH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Arnav Gruh Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaaca4900E ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-32, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

6A or as in the instant case section 67, section 86 read with section 167B of the Act. 16. Ground No.4, this ground of appeal filed by assessee requires no adjudication in view of our findings given (supra) vide para-11. Hence, this ground of appeal became infructuous as interest amounting to Rs. 1,776,36,246/- is already allowed

ILLIES ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit for Rs.1,50,000/-. It may be mentioned here that even the figure of income taxable as income from other sources consisting of interest has been meticulously worked out to even include interest on refund of Rs.8,750/- with other income of corporate rents receipts of Rs.15,00,000/- . Thus this was not a case of an inadvertent

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

6A),(6B), (6BB) and (6C) thereof. After this somewhat longish provision, we have section 10AA which enacts special provision in respect of newly established undertaking in free trade zone etc. By section 10B, there are special provision in respect of newly established 100% export oriented undertakings. Section 10B sets out the meaning of computer programmes in certain cases. Section

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

6A),(6B), (6BB) and (6C) thereof. After this somewhat longish provision, we have section 10AA which enacts special provision in respect of newly established undertaking in free trade zone etc. By section 10B, there are special provision in respect of newly established 100% export oriented undertakings. Section 10B sets out the meaning of computer programmes in certain cases. Section

MAHINDRA TRUCKS AND BUSES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

6A of the general clauses act states that when any act or regulation is made after commencement of the act, such amendment would not affect the ongoing investigation or legal proceedings. She submitted that coordinate bench ruled that the word ‘repeal’ includes ‘ommission’ and there is no merit in the objection raised by the taxpayer. She heavily relied on paragraph

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

TDS is deducted on the interest paid and interest is debited to P&L account\n• the bond holders have no right to participate in management of the bank\nThe appellant had submitted that the bonds of Rs. 1,680 Crores outstanding\nas on 31.03.2016 have been redeemed as under:\nPerpetual Bonds – IPDI Series I\n400.00\n24-07-2017\nPerpetual

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 PAN: AAACA3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal Department by : Shri S.K. Das Date of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 2 ITA NO. 655 & 749/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Asian Paints Ltd., O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These cross

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

6A, Shanti Nagar Santa Cruz (E), Mumbai-400 055 PAN : AAACA3622K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue by Shri Sanjay Singh [CIT(DR)] Date of hearing 06-01-2021 Date of Pronouncement /02/2021 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey (JM): Captioned cross appeals arise out of the order dated 26-12-2013 of learned Commissioner

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-LTU Cuffe Parade,, 29 th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DR Respondent by : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date of hearing: 09.12.2021 Date of pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These

PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTDE,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 2(5), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07

section 206C and further asked to furnish the details thereof. On the basis of explanation furnish by the assessee, A.O held the assessee liable to pay the balance tax of Rs. 43,715/- on the sale value of manufacturing scrap of Rs. 93,71,514/-u/s 206C(6)/(6A) of the Act. The assessee company is further liable

ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI vs. WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

6A & 6B is ultimately not allowed in favour of the company. B. Disallowance of Employee's Contribution to Provident Fund & ESI Fund. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of employee's contribution to Provident Fund and EST Fund amounting

THE WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

6A & 6B is ultimately not allowed in favour of the company. B. Disallowance of Employee's Contribution to Provident Fund & ESI Fund. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of employee's contribution to Provident Fund and EST Fund amounting