ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. GROUND XVI: The Appellant craves leaves to add to, alter and / or delete the above ground of appeal.” Grounds of Revenue’s Appeal bearing ITA No.5091/M/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing

ACIT CEN CIR CIR-34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation. Facts in M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7632/08] - CAPITAL ACCOUNT CASE: 22. The main issue which arises

ADDL CIT CEN CIR IX, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation. Facts in M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7632/08] - CAPITAL ACCOUNT CASE: 22. The main issue which arises

DCIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation. Facts in M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7632/08] - CAPITAL ACCOUNT CASE: 22. The main issue which arises

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Capital Gains which were inadvertently included in the return. The Tribunal observed as 13 follows: “Moreover, if the assessee is, otherwise, entitled to a claim of deduction but due to his ignorance or for some other reason could not claim the same in the return of income, but has raised his claim before the appellate authority, the appellate authority should

DCIT 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

capital gain arising out of such transaction assessee has claimed deduction of an amount of `18,96,00,000/- under section 48 of the Act towards expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of transfer. The aforesaid payment made by the assessee was split between three persons, stated to be doctors, in the following manner: - (i) Dr. Subendy

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

ZMG WARDHOWELL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Zmg Wardhowell India Pvt Income Tax Officer-7(3)(4), Ltd, Mumbai. 202, Central Wing, फनधभ/ Durvankur Chs Ltd, Sant Janabai Road, Vs. Near Greater Bank, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aaacz2077K (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Tanmay Phadke प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri G Nantha Kumar

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, or (v) the cost of acquisition of the capital asset(not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

M/S.OIL TOOLS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Oil Tools International V. Acit -15(2)(2) Services Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Village Kharsundi, Post Kharsundi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tal. Khalapur, Dist. Raigad - 410202 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaco7232M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Poojan Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Hiren Bhatt

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of subsection (1) of section 36; or 8 M/s. Oil Tools International Services Pvt. Ltd., (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived

KISHORE BHAGWANDAS RAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh, Kishore Bhagwandas Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1)(1) Ramnani, B-406, Plot No. Air India Building, 442/444, Simla House Off Mumbai – 400021 Ld. Ruparel Marg, Parsi Mumbai – 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Bcypr3697F Appellant .. Respondent

35A ought to be treated as filed on 17.10.2022 i.e. within time. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in dismissing the objections filed by the Appellant on technical grounds and without issuing any directions on the merits of the matter. 5. Rs. 17,88,000/- disallowed as per order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

SPE INDIA FILMS HOLDING LLC,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (INTL TAX) -4(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

35A. The directions of the DRP u/s 144C(5) were received on 10-01-2022 based on this directions given by the DRP this final order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) was passed. 3. Assessee raised total 6 grounds of appeal out of these we are adjudicating ground no-1,2,3, and 4 only as ground

MIRAE ASSET CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

gain from Securities held as other than stock in trade is disclosed separately. Accordingly in our view, the real nature of the MTM loss of the above two securities which as per the claim of the assessee is an allowable deduction needs to be factually examined. Therefore we are remitting the issue back to the AO with a direction

DEEPALI KIRAN POTNIS,KALYAN vs. ITO. INT. TAX, WARD-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

capital gains at Rs.1,40,11,919/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.69,11,913/-. 5. Following chronology of events are relevant for deciding the legal contention raised by the assessee. (a) Draft assessment order passed by the AO on 17-09-2021 (b) Final assessment order passed by the AO on 15.11.2021 under the impression that the assessee

BRIDGE INDIA FUND,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 457/M/2023 for assessment year 2014 – 15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

capital gain arising to the resident of Mauritius from trading in shares of the listed Indian entities. vii Thereafter the learned dispute resolution panel on 29/12/2022 issued direction under section 144C (5) of the act mentioning the dates of hearing 21/10/2022 and 01/11/2022. In the directions the learned dispute resolution panel has specifically mentioned at paragraph number 3 that

BRIDGE INDIA FUND,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 457/M/2023 for assessment year 2014 – 15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

capital gain arising to the resident of Mauritius from trading in shares of the listed Indian entities. vii Thereafter the learned dispute resolution panel on 29/12/2022 issued direction under section 144C (5) of the act mentioning the dates of hearing 21/10/2022 and 01/11/2022. In the directions the learned dispute resolution panel has specifically mentioned at paragraph number 3 that

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

capital accounts were submitted before learned CIT(A). It was submitted that although A.O failed to verify the purchases as notices u/s133(6) returned unserved and purchase parties could not be traced but sales were accepted by the A.O and there cannot be sales unless the purchases have been made by the assessee. The assessee relied upon the various case

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

capital accounts were submitted before learned CIT(A). It was submitted that although A.O failed to verify the purchases as notices u/s133(6) returned unserved and purchase parties could not be traced but sales were accepted by the A.O and there cannot be sales unless the purchases have been made by the assessee. The assessee relied upon the various case