UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

TDS claim and income shown are reconciled as per\n26AS. Appraisal report issues have been verified, status of\nAppeal if any to be mentioned, penalty interest charging, carry\nforward of losses, MAT credit, FDR, KVP any seizure of jewellery,\ncash taken care of.\n(VIJAY KUMAR SONI)\nAddl. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Range 8, Mumbai.\n21. The Assessee thus

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. CAPAGEMINI CONSULTING INDIA P. LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

CAPGEMINI CONSULTING INIDA P.LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

ITO (3) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. R.K. EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

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

8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith relevant portion of the Act for your ready reference. 2. The objects nowhere stipulate that the main or the sole object is development and sale of land and plots for commercial

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

8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith relevant portion of the Act for your ready reference. 2. The objects nowhere stipulate that the main or the sole object is development and sale of land and plots for commercial

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

8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith relevant portion of the Act for your ready reference. 2. The objects nowhere stipulate that the main or the sole object is development and sale of land and plots for commercial

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

8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith relevant portion of the Act for your ready reference. 2. The objects nowhere stipulate that the main or the sole object is development and sale of land and plots for commercial

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

8. In response assessee filed the following detailed submissions before him: - “1. Section 12 (1) of the MMRDA ACT, stipulates the objects of the authority. We are filing herewith relevant portion of the Act for your ready reference. 2. The objects nowhere stipulate that the main or the sole object is development and sale of land and plots for commercial

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

2(9) of the Insurance Act is irrelevant for the purpose of Section 101A read with IRDA regulations. Hence, the observation made by the ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.5, in our considered opinion, is wrong. 3.17. Let us now examine the applicability of provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of reinsurance premium paid

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

2(28A) of the Income-tax Act. 8. The provisions of section 194A reads as follows : 8. The provisions of section 194A reads as follows : 8. The provisions of section 194A reads as follows :— "194A. Interest other than "Interest on securities". "194A. Interest other than "Interest on securities". "194A. Interest other than "Interest on securities".—(1) Any persons. Not being

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

8 of the scheme and the relevant clause reads as under:- “8.1 A member or a Limited Trading Member of BSE, who is registered as a stock broker on the day preceding the Due Date shall become a Trading Member of the Cash Segment of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited on the Due Date.” 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

8 of the scheme and the relevant clause reads as under:- “8.1 A member or a Limited Trading Member of BSE, who is registered as a stock broker on the day preceding the Due Date shall become a Trading Member of the Cash Segment of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited on the Due Date.” 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

8 of the scheme and the relevant clause reads as under:- “8.1 A member or a Limited Trading Member of BSE, who is registered as a stock broker on the day preceding the Due Date shall become a Trading Member of the Cash Segment of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited on the Due Date.” 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

8 of the scheme and the relevant clause reads as under:- “8.1 A member or a Limited Trading Member of BSE, who is registered as a stock broker on the day preceding the Due Date shall become a Trading Member of the Cash Segment of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited on the Due Date.” 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

8. The cardinal principles of interpretation of taxing statutes centers around the opinion of Rowlatt, J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. Inland Revenue Commissioner1 which has virtually become the locus classicus2 . The above would dispense with the necessity of any further elaboration of the subject notwithstanding the numerous precedents available inasmuch as the evolution of all such principles are within