PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

10B issued by the broker for value of securities transactions and securities transaction tax collected. 9. The assessee has also drawn our attention to the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, wherein the same scrip M/s Tilak Finance Ltd was involved and the additions were deleted by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt Anju Chirania

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

gains from 100% of export oriented unit Etah amounting to Rs.5,03,65,774/- which included miscellaneous income of Rs.30,361. The assessee submitted that the miscellaneous income consists of realisation from scrap sale which is derived from the industrial undertaking. Therefore it was submitted that the said income should be eligible for deduction under section 10B. The Assessing Officer

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD) ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 1 (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

10B of the Act. It is the settled legal position that when a particular claim has been scrutinized by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, as such, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim. 11. In light of the facts that the very basis for reopening

DY CIT CC 1 (4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIAL LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

10B of the Act. It is the settled legal position that when a particular claim has been scrutinized by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, as such, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim. 11. In light of the facts that the very basis for reopening

DY CIT CC 1 (4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (NOW MERGED EITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

10B of the Act. It is the settled legal position that when a particular claim has been scrutinized by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, as such, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim. 11. In light of the facts that the very basis for reopening

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD) ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 1 (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

10B of the Act. It is the settled legal position that when a particular claim has been scrutinized by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, as such, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim. 11. In light of the facts that the very basis for reopening

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 1 (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

10B of the Act. It is the settled legal position that when a particular claim has been scrutinized by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, as such, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim. 11. In light of the facts that the very basis for reopening

GURUVASTU PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Guruvastu Properties P. Ltd. Dcit – 1(1)(4) 47, 7Th Floor, Tardeo Ac Market 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034 M K Road, Mumbai-400 020

10B) credited to the P & L A/c has to be reduced. In the instant case, the capital gain arising on transfer of capital asset is exempt u/s. 54EC by virtue of investment in Bonds to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs. As per Explanation 1 below to the second proviso to sub section

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Gains derived from developing, operating and maintaining Rail System at Kymore, Tikaria, Wadi-I and Wadi-II Units being “Infrastructure Facility” as defined in Explanation to Section-80-IA(4)(i). The Company had commenced operations of the aforesaid Railway Sidings as detailed below:- Sl. Name of the State Date of No. Unit Commencement 1. Kymore Madhya Pradesh

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Gains derived from developing, operating and maintaining Rail System at Kymore, Tikaria, Wadi-I and Wadi-II Units being “Infrastructure Facility” as defined in Explanation to Section-80-IA(4)(i). The Company had commenced operations of the aforesaid Railway Sidings as detailed below:- Sl. Name of the State Date of No. Unit Commencement 1. Kymore Madhya Pradesh

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

gains\nderived by the undertaking from the eligible business, and the business of\nleasing out of assets is not one such business as referred to in section 80-\nIA(4) of the Act. The AO further held that the income relating to such sharing\nof infrastructure with other operators is not related to providing\ntelecommunication services by the assessee

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

gains\nderived by the undertaking from the eligible business, and the business of\nleasing out of assets is not one such business as referred to in section 80-\nIA(4) of the Act. The AO further held that the income relating to such sharing\nof infrastructure with other operators is not related to providing\ntelecommunication services by the assessee

ACIT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 10(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD (SUCCESSOR COMPANY TO M/S CMC LIMITED), MUMBAI

Accordingly the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/I.T.A.No.6824/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of बिधम M/S Tata Consultancy Income Tax-10 (1) Services Ltd (Successor Vs. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Company To M/S Cmc Floor, M.K. Marg, Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No: .Aaacc2030K .. अपीलार्थी प्रत्यर्थी / Appellant / Respondent

gains derived by the undertaking from the export of things or computer software is available from the total income, if the proceeds from sale of articles/things/computer software exported out of India is received in India in convertible foreign exchange as prescribed. Clause (iv) Explanation 2 to sec. 10A defines export turnover as the consideration in respect of export

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

capital gains were added under section 68 as unexplained cash credits. 5.2.8 Having discussed the facts of the case and the judicial precedents relied upon, I am of the considerate view that the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.27,99,270 is justified and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed

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

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

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

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

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

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

BALBIRSINGH BALWANTSINGH CHHABRA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Balbirsingh Balwantsingh Dcit, Cc-3(1)(1) B-34, Nice, Midc Satpur Room No. 607 Nashik, Maharashtra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Pincode No.- 422 007. M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Addpc7217K Appellant Respondent

gain” because the amendment on which appellant relies is applicable for A.Y. 2021-22 onwards, and not for A.Y. 2016-17. Coming to the case relied on by the appellant, it is distinguishable as follows :- a) In that case, the amount paid was a single premium of Rs. 50 lakh, whereas in this case, appellant is paying Rs. 1.8 lakh