DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

capital gains). Under Section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under Section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set off against income under

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

10B claiming exemption u/s 11 and declared total income at ₹.NIL. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended and submitted the details as called for. 3. During Assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer analysed the objects

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

III of 6th Schedule of the Companies Act. The surplus arising on waiver of loan is though required to be credited to the profit & loss account as provided under section 211(2) of the Companies Act, however he pointed out that section 211(3A) as well as sub section (2) of section 115JB envisages that such profit & loss account

ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

III of 6th Schedule of the Companies Act. The surplus arising on waiver of loan is though required to be credited to the profit & loss account as provided under section 211(2) of the Companies Act, however he pointed out that section 211(3A) as well as sub section (2) of section 115JB envisages that such profit & loss account

DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SOLVAY SPECIALITIES INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

10B(1)(e)(iii) of the IT Rules, 1962. 11. The Ld AO / TPO / Ld DRP has erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment at entity level and not confining only to international transactions with AE.” 4. Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to a letter dated 24.8.2015 and submitted that the letter contains enclosures

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. ()

capital expenditure on Scientific research incurred at Hyderabad (Grounds 16 - 16.1) (17) Claim of cess on green leaf (Ground 17 – 17.1 to 17.3) Revenue (1) Deleting addition of Rs.65,92,482 towards Membership Fees and Entrance to Club (Ground 1) (2) Deleting disallowance of Rs.38,92,129 towards rural development activities.(Ground 2) (3) Restoring the 14A disallowance

SUVARNA NAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

2, are answered against petitioner. The question no. 3 is returned in favour of Revenue, holding that notice issued by Commissioner under Section 263 of Act, 1961, impugned in this writ petition is perfectly valid and in accordance to law. 35. In the result writ petition lacks merit Dismissed. 3.20. From the above analysis it is noted that

JAI HIND CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

2, are answered against petitioner. The question no. 3 is returned in favour of Revenue, holding that notice issued by Commissioner under Section 263 of Act, 1961, impugned in this writ petition is perfectly valid and in accordance to law. 35. In the result writ petition lacks merit Dismissed. 3.20. From the above analysis it is noted that

VITHALNAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

2, are answered against petitioner. The question no. 3 is returned in favour of Revenue, holding that notice issued by Commissioner under Section 263 of Act, 1961, impugned in this writ petition is perfectly valid and in accordance to law. 35. In the result writ petition lacks merit Dismissed. 3.20. From the above analysis it is noted that

THE AZAD NAGAR, COOPERATIVE HOUSING, SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

2, are answered against petitioner. The question no. 3 is returned in favour of Revenue, holding that notice issued by Commissioner under Section 263 of Act, 1961, impugned in this writ petition is perfectly valid and in accordance to law. 35. In the result writ petition lacks merit Dismissed. 3.20. From the above analysis it is noted that

THE NAVYUG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

2, are answered against petitioner. The question no. 3 is returned in favour of Revenue, holding that notice issued by Commissioner under Section 263 of Act, 1961, impugned in this writ petition is perfectly valid and in accordance to law. 35. In the result writ petition lacks merit Dismissed. 3.20. From the above analysis it is noted that

VALLABHNAGAR OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

2, are answered against petitioner. The question no. 3 is returned in favour of Revenue, holding that notice issued by Commissioner under Section 263 of Act, 1961, impugned in this writ petition is perfectly valid and in accordance to law. 35. In the result writ petition lacks merit Dismissed. 3.20. From the above analysis it is noted that

GREAVES COTTON LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GREAVES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

gain since the block of assets in which said asset falls as on 01.04.2003 was at ‘Nil’ 4,19,85,605/- 11 K Addition on account of book profit u/s 115JB on extraordinary items 52,73,20,474/- 12 L Deduction from books profit u/s 115JB the Revaluation Reserve of Rs. 6,80,317/- which was withdrawn and credited

VINATI OPRGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for the statistical purpose and that of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

iii) of Rule 8D (2). With regard to the query that why proportionate interest should not be considered for disallowance under clause (ii) of Rule 8D (2), we would like to submit that borrowed funds have not been used for the purpose of investment in Mutual Funds. Kindly refer to the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2011, the Loan Funds

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

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

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

capital in the markets, overall economic development and lev development and level of competition and whether the markets are el of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail. wholesale or retail. 18.1 Ant evaluation of Rule 10B(2) shows that the comparability valuation of Rule 10B(2) shows that the comparability valuation of Rule 10B(2) shows that

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

ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

2,064,000 (1USD =45.53) Rs. 9.39 crores Exchange rate difference Rs. (29.77 crores) (Rs. 1.40/USD * 212,836,000 USD) Net Capital loss Rs. 20.38 crores Accordingly, while computing capital gains under section 48 of the Act, the Appellant claimed a loss of Rs. 20,49,85,151 (on account of exchange fluctuation and indexation of cost