BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result assessee appeal is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Bennett Coleman Vs. Acit – 1(1)(1) & Company Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aaykar The Times Of India Bhavan, Churchgate, Bldg, Dn Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb4373Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 1(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bennett Coleman 5Th Floor, Aaykar & Company Ltd., Bhavan, Churchgate, The Times Of India Mumbai – 400020. Bldg, Dn Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb4373Q Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Appellant/Respondent Shri Srinivasan By : Venkataraman.Ar Respondent/Appellant Shri. K.C. Selvamani. Dr By : Date Of Hearing 23.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

40A(9) of the Act Rs.6,52,274/- (iv) repairs and maintenance expenses disallowance of Rs.11,13,11,113/- on the capitalization of the projects (v) software charges to be capitalized of Rs.17,65,08,146/- and assessed the total ITA No. 2344 & 3020/Mum/2019 Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd, Mumbai income of Rs.10,88,12,26,707/- and passed

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

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

GREAVES COTTON LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GREAVES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

gain since the block of assets in which said asset falls as on 01.04.2003 was at ‘Nil’ 4,19,85,605/- 11 K Addition on account of book profit u/s 115JB on extraordinary items 52,73,20,474/- 12 L Deduction from books profit u/s 115JB the Revaluation Reserve of Rs. 6,80,317/- which was withdrawn and credited

VINOD L. GADHIYA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC5(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital gain in various cases. The appellant has miserably failed to rebut that various contentions and findings recorded by AO about serious discrepancies, causing serious doubts on the genuineness of these transactions. 7.21. Reliance can be placed on the three authoritative decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this behalf laying down preposition that without appreciating the genuineness of transaction

SHAILENDRA NAHAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.260/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Mr. Shailendra Nahar Acit 25(2) 201, H Panchavan C-10, 412 Bkc Complex, Complex, Mumbai-400051 V. Laxman Mhatre Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aavpn1018L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh

capital gains which were claimed as an exempt from income-tax u/s 10(38) of the 1961 Act, causing prejudice to Revenue by depriving Revenue of legitimate income-tax due to Revenue. This led to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A). The learned counsel of assessee admitted that

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

capital gains' 15% (which add up to around 15.625% of the gains even when there is a 25% appreciation in the value of an of the gains even when there is a 25% appreciation in the value of an of the gains even when there is a 25% appreciation in the value of an equity share).” 7.4 We find that

VIRTUOUS CAPITAL LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5647/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Virtuous Capital Limited, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101/1102, Tax 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M K Vs. Maithilli Signet Premises Chs, Road, Plot No.39/4, Sector 30/A, Mumbai-400020 Vashi Navi Mumbai--400705 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

capital gains disclosed by the assessee does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and that too when assessee rectified the said mistake suo moto before assessment proceedings were completed and stated that said mistake had occurred inadvertently while computing the income. Not only this, the Hon'ble Apex Court by its order dated 25.9.2012 in Civil Appeal No.6924/2012

M/S. RATILAL & SONS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(3) of the Act, provided the conditions of section 40(b) of the Act are not applicable, shall be allowed as deduction while computing the income under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. 12. Our aforesaid conclusion is also supported by accounting treatment of remuneration paid to the partner by the firm. As the salaries paid

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

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

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

capital gains and income from other sources. The expenses claimed by the assessee are rejected under the head income from business and it is allowed under the head income from the house properties, the net result would be the same. That is, the AO Page No.| 15 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO.1128/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2003-04) ITA.NO

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

capital gains and income from other sources. The expenses claimed by the assessee are rejected under the head income from business and it is allowed under the head income from the house properties, the net result would be the same. That is, the AO Page No.| 15 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO.1128/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2003-04) ITA.NO

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse