INTERNATIONAL SHIPS STORES SUPPLIERES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 13(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2009-10 International Ships Stores Suppliers Vs. Jcit, Range 13(2) 101, Navratan, 69 P.D. Mello Road Mumbai 1St Floor, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai Pan No. Aaafi0135Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Mr. Deepak Traslhawala Assessee By : Mr. Javed Akhtar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2016

40A(3), had held :- “Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section.” , therefore the aforesaid contention of the assessee would thus fail on the said count too. Thus in light of our aforesaid observations, the ground no.1 of the appeal is dismissed and the order of the CIT(A) to the extent sustaining

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

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

section. According to him, it is According to him, it is not the case that particular issue of revision has not been not the case that particular issue of revision has not been not the case that particular issue of revision has not been confronted to the assessee confronted to the assessee but added in the final revision

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) of the Act is directed to be deleted. As a result, ground no.7 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed. 36. The issue arising in ground no.8, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act. 37. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) of the Act is directed to be deleted. As a result, ground no.7 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed. 36. The issue arising in ground no.8, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act. 37. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) of the Act is directed to be deleted. As a result, ground no.7 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed. 36. The issue arising in ground no.8, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act. 37. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 40A(3), it was held that "In interpreting a taxing statute, the court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country." In the case on hand also the scrips were of unknown or lesser known company, sale price was fantastic, there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price

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

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

3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 Page 10 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 of 1992), shall be the cost of acquisition of his original membership of the exchange:] [Provided that the cost of a capital asset, being trading or clearing rights of the recognised

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

3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 Page 10 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 of 1992), shall be the cost of acquisition of his original membership of the exchange:] [Provided that the cost of a capital asset, being trading or clearing rights of the recognised

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

3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 Page 10 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 of 1992), shall be the cost of acquisition of his original membership of the exchange:] [Provided that the cost of a capital asset, being trading or clearing rights of the recognised

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

3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 Page 10 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 of 1992), shall be the cost of acquisition of his original membership of the exchange:] [Provided that the cost of a capital asset, being trading or clearing rights of the recognised

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

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).

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions

BAJINATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 18, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafb2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent)

3 AJKPD7142GF 28, 785 Rizvanbhai Wrong Ramesh Roadways Rizvanbhai PAN BZBPM6848M Nurani PAN Noorani PAN ADGPN3469B 4 CGUPF6560H 28, 620 Wrong Sarvaiya Sarvaiya Gurukrupa Transport PAN Abbasbhai PAN AKUPG2269F Abbasbhai PAN CGUPS6560H 5 Rafikbhai AIYPB7298R 33,025 Tambe Gurukrupa Transport Rafikbhai Babubhai Virani Shreeniva Agent Babubhai sa Bijesh PAN AKUPG2269F Virani PAN A/YPB7298R The provision of section 40a(ia), thus

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

3. Now the short question which has arisen before us is whether the short term capital gains on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 16,24,981/- which was clearly chargeable to income-tax under provisions of Section 111A of the 1961 Act on which tax was required I.T.A. No.260/Mum/2017 to be paid albeit at concessional rates was wrongly shown

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed. It may be noted that deduction u/s.54E is pari-materia to the one u/s.54EC, both requiring the assessee to make investment in specified asset/certain bonds within a period of six months after the date of transfer of the asset on which capital gain arises