BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

290) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as under: "Maximum marginal rate" means the rate of income-tax (including surcharge on income-tax, if any) applicable in relation to the highest slab of income in the case of an individual, association of persons or, as the case may be, body of individuals as specified in the Finance

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1)(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

290) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as under: "Maximum marginal rate" means the rate of income-tax (including surcharge on income-tax, if any) applicable in relation to the highest slab of income in the case of an individual, association of persons or, as the case may be, body of individuals as specified in the Finance

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

290 (SC)/[2023] 295 Taxman 228 (SC)/[2024] 460 ITR 6(SC) 2. Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(1)(2) v. Jayesh T Kotak [2021] 130 taxmann.com 170 (SC)/[2021] 282 Taxman 298 3. Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(1)(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

290) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as under:\n"maximum marginal rate" means the rate of income-tax (including\nsurcharge on income-tax, if any) applicable in relation to the highest slab of\nincome in the case of an individual, association of persons or, as the case\nmay be, body of individuals as specified in the Finance

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS ) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

290 and have sold 2,88,000 shares for Rs. 9,75,17,317 showing a loss of Rs. 2,04,94,972. During the same year, you have purchased 1,93,65,000 shares of Virtual Global Education Ltd for Rs 28,05,83,298 and sold 20,42,896 shares for Rs 1,32,97,239 showing

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

290 and have sold 2,88,000 shares for Rs. 9,75,17,317 showing a loss of Rs. 2,04,94,972. During the same year, you have purchased 1,93,65,000 shares of Virtual Global Education Ltd for Rs 28,05,83,298 and sold 20,42,896 shares for Rs 1,32,97,239 showing

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

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

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

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

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

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2 to 8). Copy of the order is placed on record. 68. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the submissions of the Ld.AR. 69. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03. While deciding the issue

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2 to 8). Copy of the order is placed on record. 68. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the submissions of the Ld.AR. 69. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03. While deciding the issue

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SOHNI DEPAK TANNA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm C.O.No. 135/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Pankaj Jain Revenue By : Shri. Kishor Dhule Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

290 2,87,63,040 bought shares from of 9/11/2013 Sell 52,000 288.50 1,49,99,920 market, volume of accommodation 9/12/2013 Sell 64,000 295.9 1,89,36,00320 entry is ₹ 121,658,000/– (gain) It is seen that the persons have sold large quantities of the script and no purchase that is available as per the bulk

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

gains\nderived by the undertaking from the eligible business, and the business of\nleasing out of assets is not one such business as referred to in section 80-\nIA(4) of the Act. The AO further held that the income relating to such sharing\nof infrastructure with other operators is not related to providing\ntelecommunication services by the assessee

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

290. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, upon perusal of the computation of income, it was observed that the assessee sold agricultural land at Bhopal on 03/09/2012

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

gains\nderived by the undertaking from the eligible business, and the business of\nleasing out of assets is not one such business as referred to in section 80-\nIA(4) of the Act. The AO further held that the income relating to such sharing\nof infrastructure with other operators is not related to providing\ntelecommunication services by the assessee

MUKESH VAIKUNTHLAL MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

2 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Act. The appellant hereby prays that the such deduction under section 54 of the Act may be granted to the appellant in the computation of capital gains income. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, an individual, filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 declaring a total income

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

290\n6,027,951,424\nDeposits\nDemand Deposits :\nI) From Bank\n70,981,729\n68,306,758\n67,973,713\nII) From Others\n4,505,995,377\n6,380,438,426\n6,105,760,570\nParticulars\nMarch 31, 2000 March 31, 1999 March 31, 1998\nTotal Owned funds

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

290/-, which\nincluded the said consideration of Rs. 6,88,00,000/- under the\nhead Long Term Capital Gains, and paid tax thereon at the\napplicable rate of 20 percent. It was emphasized that the\nAssessment Unit accepted the slump sale characterization and\ntaxed the capital gains accordingly.\n4.5 The AR submitted that both the transferor (the assessee) and\nthe