ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MPL PLASTICS LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S MILTON PLASTICS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 12B(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be invoked and the break-up value substituted in the place of the declared price and the respondent assessed to tax on capital gains

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MPL PLASTICS LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S MILTON PLASTICS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 12B(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be invoked and the break-up value substituted in the place of the declared price and the respondent assessed to tax on capital gains

ACIT-2(2)(12), MUMBAI vs. M/S MPL PLASTICS LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S MILTON PLASTICS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 12B(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be invoked and the break-up value substituted in the place of the declared price and the respondent assessed to tax on capital gains

ACIT-2(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S MPL PLASTICS LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS MILTON PLASTICS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 12B(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be invoked and the break-up value substituted in the place of the declared price and the respondent assessed to tax on capital gains

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MPL PLASTICS LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS MILTON PLASTICS LTD) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 12B(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be invoked and the break-up value substituted in the place of the declared price and the respondent assessed to tax on capital gains

RAVI K SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi K Sheth Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp , Income Tax -5(3)(1), Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 (Pan : Aaips7341E) (Assessee) (Respondent)

capital gains and other sources filed his return of income on 30.07.2011 declaring income of ₹.3,91,86,204/- and the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the assessment was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21.02.2014 computing the annual ratable value for the property at Flat

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 115TA of the Act\nprovides for different rates for different Assessees, which\nsubstantiates that the tax paid by trust u/s 115TA of the Act is the\ntax paid on behalf of the Assessee. The taxability in the hands of\nthe Securitisation trust.\nThus, the interest income of the Assessee, though not taxed in the\nhands of the Assessee (investor

YES BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), MUMBAI

gains from business and\nprofession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are\nheld as „stock-in-trade, certain dividend is also earned, though\nincidentally, which is also an income. However by virtue of Section 10(34)\nof the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income\nand is exempt from

MAHAKOSHAL REFRACTORIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahakoshal Refractories Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-15(1)(1), E-309, Crystal Plaza, Vs. Mumbai. Opposite Infinity Mall, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053. Pan : Aaecm4903B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-Panchkula[„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 16-10-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assesseehas Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

CAPITAL GAIN - 4 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES - 5 INTRA HEAD ADJUSTMENTS - 6 TOTAL (AFTER INTRA HEAD 30,02,92,025 ADJUSTMENT) 6=(1+2+3+4)-5 7 LOSSESS OF CURRENT YEAR SET - OFF AGAINST 6 8 BALANCE AFTER SET OFF CURRENT 30,02,92,025 YEAR LOSSESS (6-7) 9 BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSESS SET - OFF -AGAINST 6 10 GROSS

ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

gain turnover from industrial undertaking in which the head office expenses are not having any direct nexus with 6 ITA No. 4792 & 5550/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2006-07) Blue Star Ltd. Dadra and Himachal Pradesh factories for which deduction u/s. 80IB and 80IC are claimed. The assessee further contended that the co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s case

BLUE STAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

gain turnover from industrial undertaking in which the head office expenses are not having any direct nexus with 6 ITA No. 4792 & 5550/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2006-07) Blue Star Ltd. Dadra and Himachal Pradesh factories for which deduction u/s. 80IB and 80IC are claimed. The assessee further contended that the co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s case