LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing it with Government revenue and filing of the statements more stringent. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing it with Government revenue and filing of the statements more stringent. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing it with Government revenue and filing of the statements more stringent. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing it with Government revenue and filing of the statements more stringent. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction

PERFECT FILAMENTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid decision

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailperfect Filaments Limited, E-23/24/25/26, Commerce Centre, Tardeo Road Tulsi Wadi, S.O., ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaacp4215F V/S Principal Commissiioner Of Income Tax-4 ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

capital gain on sale of land and on building the sale consideration has reduced from block of assets. Further, the Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings has duly verified by making specific enquires on the above aspects. ITA No.3501/Mum./2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) 3 4.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT

EXPRESS GLOBAL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital gain was correctly taxed and the refund of Rs. 51,72,150/- was received on 07th May,2015. However, the AO did not gave the credit of TDS of Rs.9,93,555/- which was not claimed while filing the return but was submitted before Him. C. The Appellant relying on the Principle of Natural Justice & Equity (As Palkhivala

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

capital gain, which would be exigible to tax and for this reason, we say that there is no loss to revenue either. 29. Thus, in view of the above, once the property forms part of the block of assets, carving out the depreciation for the said property and disallowing the same goes against the spirit of allowing depreciation

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

capital gain, which would be exigible to tax and for this reason, we say that there is no loss to revenue either. 29. Thus, in view of the above, once the property forms part of the block of assets, carving out the depreciation for the said property and disallowing the same goes against the spirit of allowing depreciation

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under Section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April of the assessment year

M/S RESOIVE & FIRE INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

206C(7) is nothing but penal in nature. Further, he observed that based on the decision in the case of Goetze India Limited vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court has held that assessing officer cannot entertain the claim made by the assessee otherwise than by filing a revised return. Accordingly, he rejected the submissions made

P.K JAIN FAMILY HOLDING TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 31(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated here in above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Capital Gain and Income from Other Sources. It filed its return of income on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,21,63,297/-. 2.1 During the year under consideration, assessee earned interest income of Rs.1,05,13,029/- on which TDS of Rs. 10,16,942/- was deducted by various parties. The assessee filed statement showing party-wise details

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross- country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said