ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

194C of the 1961 Act , wherein the AO made additions to the tune of Rs. 88,08,20,017/- under provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act on the ground that the assessee has infringed provisions of Section 194J read with Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act on payments made towards Channel Placement/Carriage Fees, vide

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

section 194C. Thus, in view this circular as well as amendment brought out by Finance Act, 2009, in our view the impugned transactions were not liable for deduction of TDS u/s 194C. 8.10. Lastly, it is noted by us that an order was passed in the case of assessee u/s 201 for failure of the assessee in deduction

STAR INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Cit 16(1) Room No.467, 4Th Floor Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Mumbai Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1335Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

gained any benefits. In view of the above, we are of the view that no disallowance shall be made and we direct the AO / TPO accordingly.” 4.2. We find that the year under appeal is the third year of claim of depreciation by the assessee on payment of brand license fees. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision in assessee

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

capital gains on sale of units of mutual funds invested out of idle funds of borrowing of the project division and additions towards Passenger Service Fees - Security component (PSF-SC) of Rs. 51,03,65,280/-. The Ld.CIT(A) has also enhanced the income of the assesee by adding Rs. 4,68,46,632/-, on account of interest income earned

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

VASANT J, KHETANI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3340/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Mr. Vasant J. Khetani, Joint Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255/16, Kamla Sadan, Income Tax-17(3), V. Prof. U.U. Bhatt Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Matunga, Road,Mumbai. Mumbai 400 019. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpk 4366M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

gains were being computed, therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction of confirmed and accrued contingent liability. The assessee relied upon the decisions in the case of CIT v. Southern Estates (P) Ltd. (1982) 136 ITR 846 (Cal.), CIT v. B&A Plantations & Industries Ltd. (2002) 257 ITR 694 (Gau.), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Joint

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

DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. YASH RAJ FILMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav

194C. Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account

DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. YASH RAJ FILMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav

194C. Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account

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

SUCHETAN COMMERCIAL & MARKETING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

capital gains in its returns on sale of depreciable assets u/s 50 of the Act and had also confirmed directly before the ld. AO that no depreciation has been claimed on the assets transferred to assessee. It is a fact on record that the assessee had actually paid consideration to Iping for purchase of assets. It is also a fact