ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

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

194J read with Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act on payments made towards Channel Placement/Carriage Fees, vide assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the 1961 Act, by holding as under: ―8.4 Revenue is under appeal on issue. The undersigned has considered the above submissions carefully

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

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

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

capital gain accordingly. ISSUE No. 4 7. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the disallowance of sub- brokerage paid to various parties of Rs.1,40,611/- being the difference between amount accounted for by appellant in its books of account and the amount accounted for by the recipients in connection with sub-brokerage. The Ld. Representative of the assessee

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

PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 2(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

gains’ and also claimed the same as exempt being capital receipt, the payment made by the assessee towards purchase of copyrights and technical know how did not fall within the scope of exclusion provided under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore, liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194J

DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA TELESERVICES (MAH) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-8(3)(1) M/S Tata Teleservices (Mah) Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Ltd., D-26, Ttc Indl Area Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Midc, Sanpada, P.O. Turbhe, Mumbai-20. Navi Mumbai-400703. Vs. Pan: Aaach1458C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Hiten Chande (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

194J. In view of the aforesaid, we quash the demand raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). 5. Considering the decision of co-ordinate bench on similar issue, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has also followed the decision of Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case, thus we affirm the order

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

194J read with section 9(i)(vii) of the Act. As the\nassessee failed to deduct the tax at source, the entire expenditure towards\nroaming charges was proposed to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act, added to the total income of the assessee. The\ndetailed objections filed by the assessee

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

194J read with section 9(i)(vii) of the Act. As the\nassessee failed to deduct the tax at source, the entire expenditure towards\nroaming charges was proposed to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act, added to the total income of the assessee. The\ndetailed objections filed by the assessee

ITO 31(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HEMANT A. DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Income Tax Officer Hemant A. Desai Ward 31(1)(5) B-10 Kantilal Niwas Off Prattakshkar Bhavan, C-11 Aarey Rd, Shreyas Colony, Vs. R.No.707 Bkc Bandra (E) Goregaon(E) Mumbai-50 Mumbai-400063 Pin-Afffd6476Bss .. Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr .. Shri. Vijay Joshi, Ar Assessee By Date Of Hearing .. 22-05-2017 .. Date Of Pronouncement 24-05-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

capital gains is merely on the basis of the ledger account provided by M/s. V.K. Developers. The Appellant has no corroborated the same with the facts of the case or the agreements governing this transaction. Being a development project, all the receipts and payments are duly recorded through agreements only. In the instant case, the land FSI cost

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, 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

DCIT (IT) - 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS CAPITAL INVESTMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal, as also the CO, are dismissed

194J of the Act due to some future amendment with retrospective effect. Here the case is no tax (at time of payment of sum) against tax deductibility under section 195 as a result of retrospective amendment. Interest under section 201(1A) is a consequence of the additional demand under section 201(1) raised under section 195. When on principal