ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Capital Gain" in terms of Section 45(5)(b) of the IT Act r.w.s 48 of the IT Act. The balance interest paid to the appellant for any delay in payment of the compensation, from the date of acquisition of the property in pursuance to High Court/Supreme Court order, the same should be taxed under the head "Income from Other

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Capital Gain" in terms of 21 ITA No. 2270 & 3286 Mum 2016-Leila Advani Section 45(5)(b) of the IT Act r.w.s 48 of the IT Act. The balance interest paid to the appellant for any delay in payment of the compensation, from the date of acquisition of the property in pursuance to High Court/Supreme Court order, the same

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

194A of the Income-tax Act. To buttress this legal proposition, tax Act. To buttress this legal proposition, we hereby placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat we hereby placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat we hereby placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain. Under the facts and circumstances and considering the discussions referred above, the addition of Rs. 2.32 crore is not warranted, Ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed. We find the various new facts and submissions are emerged in the course of hearing and the agreement was filed for the first time. Therefore considering the facts, submissions

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain. Under the facts and circumstances and considering the discussions referred above, the addition of Rs. 2.32 crore is not warranted, Ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed. We find the various new facts and submissions are emerged in the course of hearing and the agreement was filed for the first time. Therefore considering the facts, submissions

TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Gain(LTCG) of Rs.18.53 lakhs, that both were claimed exempt u/s.10 of the Act, that the assessee on its own had disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.10.25 crores and had debited it to its P&L account.He asked the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section 14A r.w.r.8D should not be applied.After considering the explanation of the assessee

MEGHRAJ SILK & RAYON INDUSTRIES P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(20(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarmeghraj Silk & Rayon Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) Industries Pvt.Ltd. Mumbai 163/165, 2Nd Floor Sheikh Memon Street, Zaveri Bazar Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm2873N Appellant) .. Respondent)

capital gain. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assesee is in appeal before us. 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground No.1 of assessee’s appeal is rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

capital gain, however, the tax rate u/s.112 would be 20%. Thus, following the decision of the Special Bench, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 46. Lastly, with regard to ground No.13 raised by the Revenue that the adjustment of Rs.2,46,02,617/- on account of addition made

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AEGIS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

gain amounting to Rs.4,33,10,670/- on account of redemption of preference shares is directed to be deleted. 13. Now, we may take up Ground of appeal No.20, which deals with a disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.11,380/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On this aspect, the Ld. Representative for the assessee

AEGIS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

gain amounting to Rs.4,33,10,670/- on account of redemption of preference shares is directed to be deleted. 13. Now, we may take up Ground of appeal No.20, which deals with a disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.11,380/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On this aspect, the Ld. Representative for the assessee

BHASKAR ARVIND KUMAR HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 263 of the I.T. Act cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we see no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.” 34. In the case at hand as well, the issue regarding verification of source of purchase of the shares acquired during the year was the subject matter pertaining

ABHYUDAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD WORLI BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS, WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the 20 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital fund or 7[infrastructure debt fund or] a public sector company 8[or scheduled bank] in relation to a zero coupon bond issued on or after the 1st day of June, 2005 by such company or fund or public sector company 8[or scheduled bank];] Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. AY 2016-17 9[(xi) to any income

ABHYUDAYA CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ABHYUDAYA NAGAR BRANCH,,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)WARD1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the 20 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital fund or 7[infrastructure debt fund or] a public sector company 8[or scheduled bank] in relation to a zero coupon bond issued on or after the 1st day of June, 2005 by such company or fund or public sector company 8[or scheduled bank];] Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. AY 2016-17 9[(xi) to any income

ABHYUDAYA CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD . KURLA WEST BRANCH, ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the 20 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital fund or 7[infrastructure debt fund or] a public sector company 8[or scheduled bank] in relation to a zero coupon bond issued on or after the 1st day of June, 2005 by such company or fund or public sector company 8[or scheduled bank];] Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. AY 2016-17 9[(xi) to any income

ABHYUDAYA CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD . KANJUR BRANCH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the 20 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital fund or 7[infrastructure debt fund or] a public sector company 8[or scheduled bank] in relation to a zero coupon bond issued on or after the 1st day of June, 2005 by such company or fund or public sector company 8[or scheduled bank];] Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. AY 2016-17 9[(xi) to any income

ABHYUDAYA CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD . VIKHROLI WEST BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the 20 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital fund or 7[infrastructure debt fund or] a public sector company 8[or scheduled bank] in relation to a zero coupon bond issued on or after the 1st day of June, 2005 by such company or fund or public sector company 8[or scheduled bank];] Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. AY 2016-17 9[(xi) to any income

ABHYUDAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NEHRU NAGAR BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the 20 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital fund or 7[infrastructure debt fund or] a public sector company 8[or scheduled bank] in relation to a zero coupon bond issued on or after the 1st day of June, 2005 by such company or fund or public sector company 8[or scheduled bank];] Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. AY 2016-17 9[(xi) to any income

ABHYUDAYA CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD . BORIVALI BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the 20 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital fund or 7[infrastructure debt fund or] a public sector company 8[or scheduled bank] in relation to a zero coupon bond issued on or after the 1st day of June, 2005 by such company or fund or public sector company 8[or scheduled bank];] Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. AY 2016-17 9[(xi) to any income