DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the cross appeal filed by the revenue as well as\nassessee stands dismissed

capital gains of the slump\nsale in accordance with the provisions of section 50B that require to\ntreat cost of acquisition and cost of improvement and is allowable\nas a deduction as per section 48 (ii) of the act as net worth of the\nundertaking, and not to consider the expenditure incurred for the\npurpose of transfer as per section

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee.\nDuring the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore under

INCLINE REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was to be rejected, the Assessee was entitled to claim deduction for interest cost while computing Short Term Capital Gains arising from sale of mutual 8 Assessment Year 2015-2016 funds as the interest formed part of ‘cost of acquisition’. Reliance in this regards was placed on the following judicial precedents forming part

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

251)\n(Bangalore ITAT)\n(iii) Sling Media (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2022] (194 ITD 1) (Banglore ITAT)\n(iv) Infinera India (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT JCIT [2022] (194 ITD 463)\n(Bangalore ITAT)\n(v) DCIT Vs. M/s. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co.\nLtd (ITA No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019) (Kolkata ITAT)\n(vi) M/s. Naik Seafoods

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

251)\n(Bangalore ITAT)\n(iii) Sling Media (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2022] (194 ITD 1) (Banglore ITAT)\n(iv) Infinera India (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT JCIT [2022] (194 ITD 463)\n(Bangalore ITAT)\n(v) DCIT Vs. M/s. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co.\nLtd (ITA No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019) (Kolkata ITAT)\n(vi) M/s. Naik Seafoods

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee.\nDuring the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total\namounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act.\nThe assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on\nthe borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore under

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

Capital Gains)(%)\n83.30\nOther Income (%)\n16.70\nTOTAL – (%)\n100\nAPPORTIONMENT OF PROFIT BEFORE\nTAX\nGross Income\n13,454,112,251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8.\nIn the course

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

Capital Gains)(%)\nOther Income (%)\nTOTAL – (%)\nAPPORTIONMENT OF PROFIT BEFORE\nTAX\nGross Income\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\nTotal Expenses\nProfit Before Tax\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n774,655,522\n127

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

Capital Gains)(%)\nOther Income (%)\nTOTAL – (%)\nAPPORTIONMENT OF PROFIT BEFORE\nTAX\nGross Income\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\nTotal Expenses\nProfit Before Tax\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n774,655,522\n127

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Capital Gains)(%)\n83.30\nOther Income (%)\n16.70\nTOTAL – (%)\n100\nAPPORTIONMENT OF PROFIT BEFORE\nTAX\nGross Income\n13,454,112,251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

Capital Gains)(%)\n83.30\nOther Income (%)\n16.70\nTOTAL – (%)\n100\nAPPORTIONMENT OF PROFIT BEFORE\nTAX\nGross Income\n13,454,112,251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

Capital Gains)(%)\n83.30\nOther Income (%)\n16.70\nTOTAL – (%)\n100\nAPPORTIONMENT OF PROFIT BEFORE\nTAX\nGross Income\n13,454,112,251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

251 to make such observations while giving finding of fact placed on record. Whether in the hands of the P a g e | 50 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 transferor company, it would be subject to capital gains tax or not will only be decided on the facts and merits

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

251 to make such observations while giving finding of fact placed on record. Whether in the hands of the P a g e | 50 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 transferor company, it would be subject to capital gains tax or not will only be decided on the facts and merits

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains amounting to Rs.22,49,01,802/- being compensation on acquisition of land in AY 2016-2017 and taxing the interest of Rs 44,29,98,502/- u/s 56(2)(viii) in AY 2016-2017 being interest on delay in payment of compensation on acquisition of land without appreciating that the compensation and the consequential interest is not taxable

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains amounting to Rs.22,49,01,802/- being compensation on acquisition of land in AY 2016-2017 and taxing the interest of Rs 44,29,98,502/- u/s 56(2)(viii) in AY 2016-2017 being interest on delay in payment of compensation on acquisition of land without appreciating that the compensation and the consequential interest is not taxable

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, CIRCLE-8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

251(1)(a) of the Act applicable in case of an appeal against the assessment order.” 5. Brief facts of the case for AY. 2018-19 are that assessee company is engaged in the business of Life Insurance Business in India from year 2001. Since it is a Life Insurance Company, it computed its income u/s 44 of the Income

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

1)(iii) of the Act on account\nof capitalization of interest expenses relating to Capital WIP.\"\n13). \"The DRP, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the\naddition made on account of Arm's Length Price of international transaction\nas under:\"\n13a). \"The DRP, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the\nadjustment made