ABU DHABI COMMERCIAL BANK PJSC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc Dcit (International Taxation)- Wework India Management Private 1(1)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No. 517, Limited Vs. 2Nd Floor, Express Towers, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ranath Goenka Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

gain. On the income computed after set off of loss, deductions provisions contained under Chapter VIA apply. 13 Thus, as per section 11(2) of India-UAE treaty, firstly, computation of income and its taxability has to be determined in terms with the domestic law, i.e., the Income Tax Act. Therefore, full effect to the computation provisions contained under

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

271A,section 271J or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997; or an order

SUBHASH BHASKAR UTTURKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 1364/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Subhash Bhaskar Utturkar, Income Tax Officer 18(2)(2) बिाम/ 14-B, Mehta Apartments, Mumbai. Prof. Agashe Marg, Dadar, Vs. Mumbai 400 025. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaapu1559G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Ashok D. Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri K.C. Kanojia

Capital Gains’ but after considering the nature of transactions carried out by assessee, AO treated the same to be taxable under the head ‘Business Income’. Consequently as turnover of the assessee exceeded the limit specified in Section 44AB of the act and since the assessee failed to get the accounts audited, an amount of Rs. 1.00 Lacs was imposed

SUBHASH BHASKAR UTTURKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhsubhash Bhaskar Utturkar, 14-B, Mehta Apartments, Prof. Agashe Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400 025 Pan: Aaapu 1559G ..... Appellant Vs. The Ito 18(2)(2). Mumbai. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok Shah Respondent By : Shri A.K.Kardam

capital gains. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative has justified the levy of penalty for the reasons advanced by the Assessing Officer, which we have already adverted in the earlier paras and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case, it is quite evident that

PARESH S. JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gains and other income. The first appellate authority rightly holds that if the explanation of assessee is accepted then every tax evader could take shelter by shifting the blame on his clerk and accountants who invariably prepare the return for them. The contention of the assessee that because of the negligence on the part of the Bank the mistake

PARESH S. JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gains and other income. The first appellate authority rightly holds that if the explanation of assessee is accepted then every tax evader could take shelter by shifting the blame on his clerk and accountants who invariably prepare the return for them. The contention of the assessee that because of the negligence on the part of the Bank the mistake

PARESH S. JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gains and other income. The first appellate authority rightly holds that if the explanation of assessee is accepted then every tax evader could take shelter by shifting the blame on his clerk and accountants who invariably prepare the return for them. The contention of the assessee that because of the negligence on the part of the Bank the mistake

PARESH S. JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gains and other income. The first appellate authority rightly holds that if the explanation of assessee is accepted then every tax evader could take shelter by shifting the blame on his clerk and accountants who invariably prepare the return for them. The contention of the assessee that because of the negligence on the part of the Bank the mistake

NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a license) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade