RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

capital gain for AY 2004-05. However, in AY 2005-06, the Tribunal took a different view in assessee’s own case and held that the profit on sale of plot of land is to be assessee as business income. It means there are two view possible and once there are two views possible, the revision under section

PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu Vice Presedent,(As) Shri D. Karunakar Rao & Shri Amit Shukla, Sh. Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarperfect Thread Mills Ltd Vs Dcit, 8(2), Mumbai 201, Millenium Plaza Behind Sakinaka Telephone Exchange, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72 Pan: Aaacp6449E Appellant Respondednt

capital gains, the Kerala High Court has failed to note that in a mortgage there is transfer of an interest in the property by the mortgagor in favour of the mortgagee and where the previous owner has mortgaged the property during his lifetime, which is subsisting at the time of his death, then after his death his heir only inherits

NAVINCHANDRA N . MAJITHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

gain, which was also denied by the Assessing Officer. It is noticed that the matter travelled to the Tribunal, wherein, vide order in ITA No.18/Mum/2004 and ITA No.7424/Mum/2005, order dated 30/04/2010, the Assessing Officer was directed to examine the claim of the assessee and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. 2.2. Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

1o be assessed under this Act, or an intimation under sub- section (1) or sub- section (IB) of section 143, where the assessee objects to the making of adjustments! or any order of assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount

DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

1O(23AAB). So far as disallowance under section 14A is concerned, in view of the decisions of the Tribunal in case of Oriental Insurance (Supra), Bajaj Alliance General insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Add!. CIT [(2010) 130 TTJ 398 (Pune) (Trib.)] and Reliance general Insurance Co Ltd vs. Dy CIT 120101 (ITA No.781 /Mum/2007), it is held that section

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HELICHARTERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

sections 2348 and 234C." 1O. While dealing with the question as to whether an assessee can be faulted for not declaring the amount of capital gain

ASST CIT 23 (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

1O(35) of the Act in income of Rs.6,64,92,670/- earned from distribution from units held's in mutual funds." 2 M/s. Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund 4. "The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." Ground No. 1 3. Brief

HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

capital asset of the business of the assessee, the expenditure would be of revenue in nature. The ratio laid down in following cases supports our view:- a) CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd., (1969) 72 ITR 319, 325 (Cal); b) CIT v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1966) 62 ITR 827 (Cal); c) Premier Construction

VAAYA RENEWABLE ENERGY (PURNA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)`, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

1O(2)(xv)*. Those decisions were rendered on the facts of those cases. That is not the position in this case." ITA Nos.535/Mum/2018 11 Vaaya Renewable Energy (PURNA) Pvt. Ltd. If the expenditure is incurred for business purposes having nexus with the profit and promotion of the business, then it is an allowable deduction. We find support from the decision

VIKRAM B TANNAN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. Vikram Bodhraj Tanna, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Capsulation Services Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-20, Capsulations Premises, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Marine Lines Mumbai-400 088. Mumbai-20. Pan No. Aabpt 3016 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. Vikram Bodhraj Tanna, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Capsulation Services Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-3(2), Capsulations Premises, 1St Floor, Room No. 402, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Road, New Marine Lines Mumbai-400088. Mumbai-20. Pan No. Aabpt 3016 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit Cc 3(2), Central Range-3, Mr. Vikram Bodhraj Tanna, Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. M/S Capsulation Services Ltd., India Building, Nariman Point, Capsulations Premises, 1St Floor, Mumbai-400020. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Aabpt 3016 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Jacinta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021

capital gain and other sources during the year under consideration. As per the information on record, revenue received information by government of India from the French government under DTAA in exercise of its sovereign powers that some Indian nationals and residents have foreign bank accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland which were undisclosed from the Indian taxation department. This information

VIKRAM B TANNAN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

Accordingly the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. Vikram Bodhraj Tanna, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Capsulation Services Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-20, Capsulations Premises, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Marine Lines Mumbai-400 088. Mumbai-20. Pan No. Aabpt 3016 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. Vikram Bodhraj Tanna, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Capsulation Services Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-3(2), Capsulations Premises, 1St Floor, Room No. 402, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Road, New Marine Lines Mumbai-400088. Mumbai-20. Pan No. Aabpt 3016 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit Cc 3(2), Central Range-3, Mr. Vikram Bodhraj Tanna, Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. M/S Capsulation Services Ltd., India Building, Nariman Point, Capsulations Premises, 1St Floor, Mumbai-400020. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Aabpt 3016 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Jacinta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021

capital gain and other sources during the year under consideration. As per the information on record, revenue received information by government of India from the French government under DTAA in exercise of its sovereign powers that some Indian nationals and residents have foreign bank accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland which were undisclosed from the Indian taxation department. This information

ASST CIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

1O,48,OOO/- added by the A.O. The disallowance is restricted to Rs.8,26,99,OOO/-. The appellant had already disallowed Rs.36,98,OOO/-, hence, net amount allowable for disallowance is Rs.7,90,01,000/- rest of the amount is deleted i.e.Rs.25,20,47,000. Relief granted to the appellant is Rs.25,20,47,000/- 7 and 164/Mum/2015

GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

1O,48,OOO/- added by the A.O. The disallowance is restricted to Rs.8,26,99,OOO/-. The appellant had already disallowed Rs.36,98,OOO/-, hence, net amount allowable for disallowance is Rs.7,90,01,000/- rest of the amount is deleted i.e.Rs.25,20,47,000. Relief granted to the appellant is Rs.25,20,47,000/- 7 and 164/Mum/2015