DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRARAMBH SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED , GUJARAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

gains, such an arrangement\ncannot be regarded as a contract for work, since in those\ncircumstances, the parties do not work for each other they\nwork together for a common commercial object. That principle\nsquarely applies here. The assessee and the traders acted\ntogether for a common venture in securities trading; neither\nwas the contractor of the other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRARAMBH SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

gains, such an arrangement\ncannot be regarded as a contract for work, since in those\ncircumstances, the parties do not work for each other they\nwork together for a common commercial object. That principle\nsquarely applies here. The assessee and the traders acted\ntogether for a common venture in securities trading; neither\nwas the contractor of the other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRARAMBH SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

gains, such an arrangement\ncannot be regarded as a contract for work, since in those\ncircumstances, the parties do not work for each other they\nwork together for a common commercial object. That principle\nsquarely applies here. The assessee and the traders acted\ntogether for a common venture in securities trading; neither\nwas the contractor of the other

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

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

194C and failed to fit its case in the proviso to the section 201 and therefore, appellant is deemed to be assessee in default. Accordingly, all the grounds are rejected.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the definition of "Specified Agreement" as contained in section 45(5A) states

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

194C and failed to fit its case in the proviso to the section 201 and therefore, appellant is deemed to be assessee in default. Accordingly, all the grounds are rejected.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the definition of "Specified Agreement" as contained in section 45(5A) states

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

194C and failed to fit its case in the proviso to the section 201 and therefore, appellant is deemed to be assessee in default. Accordingly, all the grounds are rejected.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the definition of "Specified Agreement" as contained in section 45(5A) states

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

194C and failed to fit its case in the proviso to the section 201 and therefore, appellant is deemed to be assessee in default. Accordingly, all the grounds are rejected.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the definition of "Specified Agreement" as contained in section 45(5A) states

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATC TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VIOM NETWORKS LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Gain on deferred payment arising out of foreign currency liability It can be noticed that the expenses incurred upto the point before the asset is ready for use should be capitalized as per the Accounting Standard 10. We may also refer to Explanation 8 to sec. 43(1) of the Act, which reads as under:- “Explanation 8:- For the removal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

gains of eligible business for the first five years and upto 30% for the remaining five years in the ten consecutive assessment years out of the fifteen years starting from the time the enterprise started its operation. The legislature having ousted applicability of sub-section (1) and (2) in the opening sentence brought in for the purposes of time line

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Capital Gain, taking the cost of acquisition at Nil. (ii) Contract Receipts – Rs. 7,68,674/- The Assessing Officer noted contract receipts of Rs. 64,05,620/- on which tax was deducted at source under section 194C

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

194C of the Act and, hence, ought not to be disallowed us 40(a)(ia) for purported non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194J/194C of the Act. IV. Disallowance of Rs. 10, 00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act: 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

194C of the Act and, hence, ought not to be disallowed us 40(a)(ia) for purported non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194J/194C of the Act. IV. Disallowance of Rs. 10, 00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act: 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

194C of the Act and, hence, ought not to be disallowed us 40(a)(ia) for purported non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194J/194C of the Act. IV. Disallowance of Rs. 10, 00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act: 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains to\ntax - Principal Commissioner found that Assessing\nOfficer did not examine details regarding dishonour\nof cheques He, thus, invoked revisionary jurisdiction\nunder section 263 High Court by impugned order\nheld that since assessment order did not indicate\nany enquiries in this regard, Principal Commissioner\nrightly held that assessment order was passed\nwithout making necessary inquiries and verification\nand

SURAJKUMAR & SONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant, Member & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Surajkumar & Sons 302,-C, Shivshakti Chs Ltd., Kashinath Dhuru Marg, Agar Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaqfs4464G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent

capital gain in terms of section 48 of the Act.” 21. From the above observations we are of the considered view that the contention raised by the assessee in the present facts of the case does not hold merit where it is not a case of diversion of sale proceed but is merely application of the sale proceeds for repayment

PFIZER LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

194C of the Act would not be applicable in case of contracts for sale of goods. ITA No. 3694 & 3736/Mum/2019 & ITA No. 1620 & 1777/Mum/2020 A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17 M/S PFIZER LTD 4.5 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the issue for non-deduction of taxes on of finished goods has been duly examined in the earlier years