NIK FAMILY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainnik Family Trust Vs. Dcit, Circle – 23(1) C-7, Ishwar Niwas Sick Piramal Chamber. Nagar, Vp Raod, Girgaon. Pan/Gir No. Aadtn2244C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandhi A/W Shri Ashutosh Patare Revenue By Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 24.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Only Effective Issue Raised In The Present Appeal Regarding Levying Of Surcharge. In This Regard It Is Submitted That Assessee Is A Discretionary Trust, Eligible To File Return In Itr-5, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of 2 Nik Family Trust, Mumbai

capital gains. However, in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, surcharge has been charged even though total income of the assessee did not exceed prescribed thresh hold limit of Rs. 50 lakhs and relied upon the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Araadhya Jain Trust Vs. ITO in ITA No. 4272/Mum/2024

ISARC-14/2010-11 TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Isarc 14/2010-11 Vs. Ito 23(1)(2), Trust Room No.108, C-11, G Block, Sme Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Development Centre Grant Road, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8646N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ito 23(1)(2), Vs. M/S. Isarc 14/2010-11 Room No.108, Trust Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road C-11, G Block, Sme Grant Road, Development Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8646N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Isarc-12/2010-11 Vs. Ito 23(1)(2), Trust Room No.108, C-11, G Block, Sme Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Development Centre Grant Road, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8644Q Isarc Sidbi 2/2009-10 Trust

capital contribution. Hence, any upside given to such SR holders cannot be treated as distribution of profits to AOP members. Therefore, the provisions of section 167B would apply for charge of tax in assessee’s hands. 9.2. The ld CITA however agreed with the contention of the assessee that it is eligible for deduction of purchase consideration

KAPUR FAMILY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the order of the ld

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

capital gain taxable @ special rate u/s 111A & 112A of the Act and rest of the income qua dividend income and the remaining amount of Rs.4,54,05,499/- has been shown as taxable at the normal rate, by filling its return of income. 4. The return was processed

KAPUR FAMILY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the order of the ld

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

capital gain taxable @ special rate u/s 111A & 112A of the Act and rest of the income qua dividend income and the remaining amount of Rs.4,54,05,499/- has been shown as taxable at the normal rate, by filling its return of income. 4. The return was processed

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

167B r.w.s. 86 of the Act. A further without prejudice submission is that the company has substantial own funds by way of capital reserves aggregating Rs. 12,936 lacs which is more than 5.50 times of the balance in such JV / partnership firm. The sale proceeds of the appellant are deposited in the cash credit account and the debit balance

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

167B r.w.s. 86 of the Act. A further without prejudice submission is that the company has substantial own funds by way of capital reserves aggregating Rs. 12,936 lacs which is more than 5.50 times of the balance in such JV / partnership firm. The sale proceeds of the appellant are deposited in the cash credit account and the debit balance

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

167B r.w.s. 86 of the Act. A further without prejudice submission is that the company has substantial own funds by way of capital reserves aggregating Rs. 12,936 lacs which is more than 5.50 times of the balance in such JV / partnership firm. The sale proceeds of the appellant are deposited in the cash credit account and the debit balance

ASST CIT CEN CIR 25, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

section 80lA. As the assessee being directly under contract to the concern for the work done and also directly dealing with the Government on whose behalf the assessee are doing the work, they can be & CO No.9/15 considered as main contractors alongwith PEC and are not simply sub contractors vie-a-vis the work undertaken by them. As such