THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

4,539,004 711 32,373,318 677,189,263 644,916.945 644,916.945 per ICC- new Scal worki ng) Two 143,220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

4,539,004 711 32,373,318 677,189,263 644,916.945 644,916.945 per ICC- new Scal worki ng) Two 143,220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

4,539,004 711 32,373,318 677,189,263 644,916.945 644,916.945 per ICC- new Scal worki ng) Two 143,220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

4,539,004 711 32,373,318 677,189,263 644,916.945 644,916.945 per ICC- new Scal worki ng) Two 143,220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

4. erred in initiating revisionary assessment proceedings, even after acknowledging the fact that, the 'without prejudice material' was filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the AO has the passed the Order after examining the same, 5. erred in passing order under section 263 of the Act and directing the Assessing Officer for conducting fresh enquiry

RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

capital gain amount was deposited by the assessee before the due date of furnishing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of section 54(2) of the Act and thus, the action taken in the 4 Ravi Kant HUF assessment order was affirmed. The assessee is aggrieved

INDIAN EXTRUSIONS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Indian Extrusions Acit-24(3) B-316/317, Virwani Industrial Vs. Mumbai. Estate,Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 063 (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 112 of the Act. In the additional ground of appeal the assessee has claimed that the AO has erred in taxing the revaluation gain on the Daman building at 30% instead of 20% since the building was also held for more than 3 years. Essentially the assessee seeks that the entire gain on revaluation should be treated as long

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

gains arising from the transfer of capital asset are chargeable to tax as income of the firm. It is ITA 1797/Mum/2012 & 20 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 contended on behalf of the assessee that even after introduction of section 45(4), the position will be the same as the definition clause, i.e., namely, section 2(47), has not been amended. Secondly

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

gains arising from the transfer of capital asset are chargeable to tax as income of the firm. It is ITA 1797/Mum/2012 & 20 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 contended on behalf of the assessee that even after introduction of section 45(4), the position will be the same as the definition clause, i.e., namely, section 2(47), has not been amended. Secondly

ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S EUROFINANCE TRAININF & PUBLISHING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)– 8, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14. 2. The present appeal has been listed for hearing before us pursuant to the order dated 27/05/2022, passed by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v/s Eurofinance Training & Publishing

MATRIX PARTNERS INDIA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

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

section 90(2), the Ld. A.O. has granted the beneficial option to the applicant at the preference of the Applicant itself. 11. Treaty Provisions are applicable in re/ qua "Income" and not "sources". In this case, there has been one single species of Income, "capital gains" that too, Long Term Capital Gains. 7. To sum up, as per facts

NETESOFT INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

250 read with section 251 of Income tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us. 4. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record and deliberated on various judicial pronouncements as cited before us. 5. The basic factual matrix is not under dispute. The short question to the adjudicated

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

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

4) u/s. 47A was inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 01/04/2011. 4.3 Nowcoming back to the issues raised by the Ld.AR reproduce here in above,a query was raised by the bench, as to why,these were raisedto consider whether the assessee satisfies the requirement u/s.47(xiiib) of the Act, in order to, claim exemption from capital gain

ITO 25(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. KIRIT RAOJIBHAI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

250,003 and 76/– which is indexed for the relevant assessment year 2,50,367*519/100 3 Cost of improvement Nil Kirit Raojibhai Patel; AY 07-08 4 deduction u/s 54 EC with respect to 95,00,000 the investment in RECs capital bond 5 Deduction u/s 54 with respect to only 2,10,21,000 one flat 6 Total

RANI JAGDISH SAHDEVAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the assessment year 2013–14. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– ―1. The Learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in assessing the income of Rs.41,59,952 instead of returned income of Rs.17,41,067. 2. The Learned Assessing Office and CIT(A) erred

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

section 54 of the income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Commission expenses of Rs.2101981/-: Commission has been paid by my client is Rs.2101981/- for the purpose of sale of Bandra Flat, which has been fully affirmed by the agent which has been incurred by my client, which has been properly claimed by my client, even legal fees paid to Mr. Subhash

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the\nLearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National\nFaceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ('Ld. CIT(A)'), for the\n assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the\nfollowing grounds of appeal:\n1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BAY CAPITAL INDIA FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 55, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55,\nMumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019-20.\n2.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-\nITA No.6355/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2019-20) 2\n“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case