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

40A(9). Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 13. Now we shall take up the appeal of the Revenue, ground No. 1 of which involves the issue relating to addition of Rs.39,75,000/- made by the AO by way of TP adjustment in respect of the transactions of the assessee company with

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

9 SH Kelkar and Company Ltd. expenditure in connection with sale of the la expenditure in connection with sale of the land.During .During the course of hearing order sheet of the assessment folder was filed by the Ld. hearing order sheet of the assessment folder was filed by the Ld. hearing order sheet of the assessment folder was filed

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

9 ITA Nos.2785 to 2788/Mum/2019 & ors. Shri Vinod L. Gadhiya & ors. managed and manipulated by entry provider Shri Jagdish Purohit and bogus entries of long term capital gain are arranged through these scrips by Shri Jagdish Purohit. The statement is reproduced in para 11.1 of the assessment order. The AO also referred to the statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

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

9 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 rights of trading and undivided interest in the ownership of the stock exchange are embedded in the membership card of a stock exchange and the process of corporatisation and demutualisation of stock exchange would involve segregation of these twin rights into two separate

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

9 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 rights of trading and undivided interest in the ownership of the stock exchange are embedded in the membership card of a stock exchange and the process of corporatisation and demutualisation of stock exchange would involve segregation of these twin rights into two separate

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

9 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 rights of trading and undivided interest in the ownership of the stock exchange are embedded in the membership card of a stock exchange and the process of corporatisation and demutualisation of stock exchange would involve segregation of these twin rights into two separate

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

9 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 rights of trading and undivided interest in the ownership of the stock exchange are embedded in the membership card of a stock exchange and the process of corporatisation and demutualisation of stock exchange would involve segregation of these twin rights into two separate

M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP,MENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

capital gains. Thus, assessee succeeds on this ground in all the above mentioned assessment years. 14. The next common issue in these appeals of assessee in ITA Nos. 3371, 3372, 3373/Mum/2004 for AYs 1998-99 to 2000-01 respectively is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer restricting the exemption under Section

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

capital expenditure) wholly and exclusively for the welfare of the employees of the assessee out of the sums contributed by him, such expenditure will be allowed as deduction in computing the taxable profits of the assessee in respect of the relevant accounting year in which such expenditure has been so incurred, as if such expenditure had been incurred

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

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

40A(9) of the Act will not be applicable since the provision is not towards contribution to any pension fund. We are of the view that sections 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

40A(9) of the Act will not be applicable since the provision is not towards contribution to any pension fund. We are of the view that sections 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 40A(9) of the Act. Hence the capital contributions made by the assessee company in the welfare trusts got duly disallowed. c) The amounts claimed back from the welfare trusts by the assessee company was never contemplated at all to receive back, being irrevocable in nature, and hence the same would partake the character of a windfall receipt

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) ..

9,94,399/- on account of diminution in the value of shares held by it. The same were disallowed on the ground that the shares were held as investments, and profits and losses on the sale thereof were to be considered under the head "capital gains". Therefore, the quantum proceeding was concluded against the assessee. The Assessing Officer levied penalty

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. In support of its submissions, the learned A.R. placed reliance on the judicial precedents. 8. On the other hand, Shri Chandra Vijay, learned Departmental Representative (“learned D.R.”), vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is trite