ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

capital amounting to Rs. 14, 61,710/- and entrance fees and subscriptions paid at clubs amounting to Rs. 1,18,95,580/-. These claims of the assessee were duly reported by the Tax Auditor in his Tax Audit Report vide clause 21(a) and 21(b). In the given situation clause (iv) of section 143(1

BRILLPHARMA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC,BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1)(va). That question, in our humble understanding, can be relevant, for example, when a call is required to be taken on merits in respect of an assessment under section 143(3) or under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, or when no findings were to be given on the scope of permissible adjustments under section

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Capital Gains (LTCG) to the extent of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- and the finance cost disallowed to the extent of Rs. 9,06,801/-. The AO passed the final assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised various grounds and sub-grounds with regard

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 28 of the Act, clarifies that receipts for transfer of rights to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business, which are chargeable to tax under the head capital gain would not be taxable as profits and gains of business. Thus, the difference between the sale consideration and true value of shares

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MONSANTO INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

va) of the Act. 9. The next aspect of the dispute is as to whether such capital gain is a long term capital gain or short term capital gain. As per section 2(29A) of the Act, long term capital asset means a capital asset which is not a ‘short term capital asset. Section 2(42A) of the Act further

MONSANTO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

va) of the Act. 9. The next aspect of the dispute is as to whether such capital gain is a long term capital gain or short term capital gain. As per section 2(29A) of the Act, long term capital asset means a capital asset which is not a ‘short term capital asset. Section 2(42A) of the Act further

ASHISH VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(1) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am National Faceless Appeal Ashish Vaid Centre (Nfac), 115, Maker Chambers Iii, Delhi Nariman Point, Vs. Ito 3(1)(1)Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 021 M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aacpv7792A Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022

capital loss in bad in law and void ab initio. 1. DECISION: The submissions made on behalf of the appellant have been duly considered. The only issue in appeal is admissibility of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to employees contribution to ESI & PF fund if the employer deposits the same after

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VOLTAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

36(1)(va) of the IT Act. Learned CIT(A) had deleted this addition holding that as the payments get 8 Voltas Limited covered u/s. 43B of the Act as they were deposited within stipulated time. 24. Against this order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 25. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the record, we find that

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out-goings forming part of the assessees' liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these alone

PARAMOUNT HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE TPA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhparamount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

section 139 (1). 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in concluding that the amendments made by the Finance Act 2021 to Explanation 5 to sec. 43B and Explanation 2 to 36(1)(va) will apply retrospectively, though the Finance Act states that “These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

1 of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 23. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A), taking - note of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT V s. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait in ITA No.4404 and 1883/Mum/2004 dated

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

1 of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 23. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A), taking - note of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT V s. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait in ITA No.4404 and 1883/Mum/2004 dated

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), 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)

36. The contentions raised by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee inter- alia qua the provisions contained under section 28(va) that the existing provisions of clause (ii) of section 28(a) is restrictive in its scope as far as taxation of compensation is concerned; a large segment of compensation received in connection with business and employment is within

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)

36. The contentions raised by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee inter- alia qua the provisions contained under section 28(va) that the existing provisions of clause (ii) of section 28(a) is restrictive in its scope as far as taxation of compensation is concerned; a large segment of compensation received in connection with business and employment is within

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

capital gain and other sources. For the year under consideration, the return of income was filed on 31.10.2017 declaring its total income at Rs. 58,15,55,970/- and deemed total of income of Rs. 105,62,70,517/- u/s 115JB of the Act. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted by DDIT (investigation unit

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

capital gain and other sources. For the year under consideration, the return of income was filed on 31.10.2017 declaring its total income at Rs. 58,15,55,970/- and deemed total of income of Rs. 105,62,70,517/- u/s 115JB of the Act. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted by DDIT (investigation unit