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)

aa)(ia) of the Act providing for cost of acquisition of bonus shares to be Nil cannot be imported into the provisions of section 55(2)(ac) of the Act and it has to be considered as per grand-fathering provisions le fair market value as on 31 January 2018 should be adopted 2 Ajay Jaisinghani Without prejudice, adjudication

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

AA on the importer notices.”\n5.4.1 Since, the very basis of the making addition of\novervaluation in purchase of capital goods has been cancelled; the\naddition made in the hands of the assessee on that very same basis\ncannot be sustained. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld.\nCIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The relevant grounds

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

gains from business/profession. There is no dispute regarding either the incurring of the expenditure or its genuineness. Thus, when the assessee has incurred certain expenses in course of its business it has to be allowed as deduction. The provisions contained in the statute empower the approving authority to grant approval strictly in terms with the prescribed rules. The rules nowhere

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

gains\nfrom business/profession. There is no dispute regarding either the incurring of\nthe expenditure or its genuineness. Thus, when the assessee has incurred certain\nexpenses in course of its business it has to be allowed as deduction. The\nprovisions contained in the statute empower the approving authority to grant\napproval strictly in terms with the prescribed rules. The rules nowhere

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

AA+", strongly proving that the assessee\nis the economic owner of the brand and the 'value creation' for the said\nintangible asset of brand has been carried out only by the assessee and\nnot by Toto Sons Ltd, leaving absolutely no iota of doubt or ambiguity on\nthe economic ownership of the brand and so, Toto Sons Ltd. having been

SUDHEER CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 23(3)(7), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2012-13

gain/ (loss). 5. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's action in making addition of Rs 2,20,36,564/- u/s 68 on account of sale proceeds on sale of shares of M/s Tilak Ventures Limited and after holding

DCIT, CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

253 ITR 749 (Guj). Further, full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Groz Beckert Asia Limited (2013) 351 ITR 196 (P&H) (FB) before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, a similar claim of membership fees of a club paid by the assessee-company was declined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

AA on the importer notices.”\n5.4.1 Since, the very basis of the making addition of\novervaluation in purchase of capital goods has been cancelled; the\naddition made in the hands of the assessee on that very same basis\ncannot be sustained. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld.\nCIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The relevant grounds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

AA on the importer notices.”\nSince, the very basis of the making addition of\novervaluation in purchase of capital goods has been cancelled; the\naddition made in the hands of the assessee on that very same basis\ncannot be sustained. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld.\nCIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The relevant grounds

M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (EARLIER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8,KOLKATTA), MUMBAI

253 ITR\n749 (Guj). Further, full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana\nHigh Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Groz\nBeckert Asia Limited (2013) 351 ITR 196 (P&H) (FB) before\nthe Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, a similar claim of\nmembership fees of a club paid by the assessee-company was\ndeclined

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

253 (Mumbai-Trib).\n10. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused\nthe orders of the lower authorities and the material evidences\nbrought on record in the form of Paper book. The entire dispute\nrevolves around the charging of share premium of Rs. 490/- per\nshare on a book value of Rs. 10/- each. This dispute is more

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

AA on the importer notices.”\n5.4.1 Since, the very basis of the making addition of\novervaluation in purchase of capital goods has been cancelled; the\naddition made in the hands of the assessee on that very same basis\ncannot be sustained. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld.\nCIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The relevant grounds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

AA on the importer notices.”\n5.4.1 Since, the very basis of the making addition of\novervaluation in purchase of capital goods has been cancelled; the\naddition made in the hands of the assessee on that very same basis\ncannot be sustained. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld.\nCIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The relevant grounds

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Since goods are held not liable 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs