NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

gain. This is not a case where any particulars of income or portion of income were concealed. The assessee has given full disclosure and explanations during the course of reassessment proceedings. The revised return of income filed by the assessee is accepted by department without any additions. 2. In this context, it is to be stated that penalty

RANJANBEN CHUNILAL GADA,MUMBAI vs. TIO 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

246A against the Order U/S 147 r.w.s\n1448 dated 18-05-2023 making addition of Rs.69,67,752/- U/S 69A and\nRs.1,39,355/- U/S 69C in spite of the fact that-\n(i) The information received by the Assessing Officer from INSIGHT\nPORTAL is non-specific and general information lacking any specific\ninformation about the Assessee

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Income Tax-3(1)(1) Godrej It Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020

section (2) i.e by the Valuation Officer on a reference made by the A.O exceeds the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority then, the value so adopted or assessed by such authority shall be taken as the full value of consideration Dow Agrosciences India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai – A.Y 2014-15 29 received

AJAY JAISINGHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

capital gains: Without prejudice, provisions of section 55(2)(aa)(ia) of the Act cannot be imported into the provisions of section 55(2)(ac) of the Act. 8. without prejudice to the above, failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 55(2)(aa)(ia) of the Act providing for cost of acquisition of bonus shares

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. BOROSIL GLASS WORKS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6583/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Borosil Glass Works Ltd, 4Th Floor, Khanna Const. House- Tax Circle 6(1) R No.506, Vs. 44 Dr R G Thandani Marg, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Worli, M K Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacb5484G अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shrimati Bharti Singh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.8.2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To Wrongful Adjudication Of Levy Of Interest Of Rs.71,64,280/- U/S 234C Dehors The Rules, Which Was Not 2 6583/Mum/2013

capital gains has accrued or arisen. Advance tax on the current income shall be payable by all the companies, who are liable to pay the same, in four installments during each financial year on or before the specified dates. The provisions of section 115JB (5) of the Act clearly indicates that the provisions of advance tax are applicable while determining

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

gains' arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The term 'slump sale' has been defined in Section 2(42C) of the Act as the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale for a lump

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

section 246A, it is clear that this ground is squarely covered u/s, 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where it has been categorically mentioned that appeal in respect of "to the amount of tax determined" lies before learned CIT(A), therefore on this issue we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the learned

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CREDIT SUISSE (SINGAPORE) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

capital gains and losses in accordance with the Act without taking selective recourse to the DTAA and further that the assessee if chooses to take the benefit of tax treaty between India and Singapore then the income and losses should be covered under the said treaty and no carry forward of losses shall be allowed under the Income

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CREDIT SUISSE (SINGAPORE) LIMITED, SINGAPORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

capital gains and losses in accordance with the Act without taking selective recourse to the DTAA and further that the assessee if chooses to take the benefit of tax treaty between India and Singapore then the income and losses should be covered under the said treaty and no carry forward of losses shall be allowed under the Income

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 2 (22) (a) of the act stating that there is a release of the assets by the assessee to Aditya Birla capital limited and in turn Aditya Birla capital limited issued the shares to the shareholders of the assessee company in the guise of demerger by allotment of 92.02 crores equity shares having the fair market value

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 2 (22) (a) of the act stating that there is a release of the assets by the assessee to Aditya Birla capital limited and in turn Aditya Birla capital limited issued the shares to the shareholders of the assessee company in the guise of demerger by allotment of 92.02 crores equity shares having the fair market value

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

capitalize on associated brand value at a domestic level Acquainted with use of high end and quality techniques in India thereby attracting foreign tourists - Assistance from companies operating as sale offices (eg IHMS, AHMS) to promote IHCL‟s business worldwide which would promote flow of foreign tourists in India - Getting occasion to touch base the overseas customers with Indian Company

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 70(1), to have the amount of such loss set off against any other Long-term Capital Gains. 3.1 Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Assessee submits that, if the loss on the cancellation of the shares is not allowed in the year in which such cancellation took place, ie, in the year under consideration, such loss will never

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

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

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

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

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

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

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

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the ITA No.5140-43/Mum/2018 Lawmen Concepts Private Limited Assessment Year-2014-15 Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this