DCIT -4(1), MUMBAI vs. FOUR DIMENSION SECURITIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

TDS provisions in the case of residents and curb bogus payments. Moreover, though Section 194J was inserted with effect from 1/7/1995, till the assessment year in question that is AY 2005-06 both the revenue and the assessee proceeded on the footing that Section 194J was not applicable to the payment of transaction charges and accordingly, during the period from

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

TDS provisions in the case of residents and curb bogus payments. Moreover, though Section 194J was inserted with effect from 1/7/1995, till the assessment year in question that is AY 2005-06 both the revenue and the assessee proceeded on the footing that Section 194J was not applicable to the payment of transaction charges and accordingly, during the period from

INCOME TAX OFFIECER-17(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. SUGARCHEM, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalincome Tax Officer-17(3)(4) M/S. Sugarchem 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Kshamalaya, 3Rd Floor Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Marine Lines Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aayfs3762P Appellant Respondent

94,46,466/-. The AO, while computing the income of the `80,23,971/- assessee, disallowed representing payment made to transport agencies. According to the AO the assessee made payments to 2 M/s. Sugarchem transport contractors without fulfilling the conditions laid down in sections 194(6) and 194(7) of the Act and both these provisions are cumulative nature. Since

THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAURI TANDON, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleacit – 15(1)(1) V. Gauri Tandon Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tandon Beach House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(Pt), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Aaapb4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Smiti Samant

TDS. Accordingly, notices 143(2) and 142(1) of Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) were issued and served on the assessee. In response, authorised representative of the assessee attended and filed relevant information as called for. 3. Further, a reference was made u/s 90 of the Act under Indo Singapore DTAA

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

94,362/- Rs. 44,63,388/- 7 Interest claimed @6 p.a. u/s Rs. 1,11,67,193/- Rs. 39,48,380/- Rs. 4,46,339/- 244A 5.1 It is contended by the ld.DR that the assessee has submitted that the jurisdictional High Court, in its decision in the case of UPS Freight Services P Ltd. Vs DCIT (supra) and others

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

94,411/- u/s.37(1) and alternatively also stated that the same would be liable for disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. 3.2. The ld. CIT(A) considering the fact that there was an amendment in Section 2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 w.e.f. 26/12/2014 held that the assessee shall be allowed deduction on payments made prior to 26/12/2014

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub- section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub- section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such

LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub- section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub- section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such

M/S. GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSETS MANAGEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

7] vii. Ledger account of HSM in the books of various family members for A.Y. 1991-92 reflecting in the aforesaid transactions carried out by HSM for them [Page 1662-1724 of PB No. 7] 56. The ld AR submits that the aforesaid evidences clearly establish that the transactions reflected in the seized page pertaining to the portfolio valuation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S.GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

7] vii. Ledger account of HSM in the books of various family members for A.Y. 1991-92 reflecting in the aforesaid transactions carried out by HSM for them [Page 1662-1724 of PB No. 7] 56. The ld AR submits that the aforesaid evidences clearly establish that the transactions reflected in the seized page pertaining to the portfolio valuation

SLEEK INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 32(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

7) and 94(8) of the IT Act is not applicable as the Appellant has purchased original units prior to period of three months from the record date and therefore short term capital loss on sale of Sundaram Units amounting to Rs. 2,41,37,525 to be allowed. 5. The Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income tax - 32, erred

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub- section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

94-95 of the FPB). For this reason, the interest on income tax refund was not credited to Profit and Loss Account as per the policy consistently followed by the Appellant which is also in accordance with the Accounting Standard - 9 issued by ICAI. Similarly, the Appellant has earned Pre-Operative income of Rs.23,80,33,5737- being

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

TDS. 19. Deduction under section 80-IA in respect of windmills The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of the appellant for deduction under section 80-IA in relation to income from windmills. 20. Dividend distribution tax [DDT] The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the appellant’s claim for refund

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

TDS. 19. Deduction under section 80-IA in respect of windmills The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of the appellant for deduction under section 80-IA in relation to income from windmills. 20. Dividend distribution tax [DDT] The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the appellant’s claim for refund

GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 31, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Growmore Leasing & Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 Investment Ltd. 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent M/S Growmore Leasing & Investment Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Dr. P. Daniel, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Vijay Mehta & Dharmesh Shah, Ars’ .. Date Of Hearing 01-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-11-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

94(4) would come into operation only if:- (i) Where any person is carrying on a business which consists wholly or partly in dealing in securities; (ii) Buys or acquires any securities and sells back or retransfers the securities; (iii) The result of the transaction is that interest becoming payable in respect of the securities is receivable