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

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

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

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT - 10 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

gains of the business; (iii) the condition subsequent, the fulfilment of which may result in the reduction or even extinction of the liability, would not have the effect of converting that liability into a contingent liability; (iv) a trader computing his taxable profits for a particular year may properly deduct not only the payments actually made to his employees

SANJAY V. JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 40a(ia) of the Act?” 9. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the 100% addition of capital gains

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital of the subsidiary company (except in cases where it controls the composition of the board of directors without holding majority of the shares). While the holding company is a member of its subsidiary company, the subsidiary company is not a member of the holding company. As, the subsidiary company was not a member of the assessee subclause

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

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital of the subsidiary company (except in cases where it controls the composition of the board of directors without holding majority of the shares). While the holding company is a member of its subsidiary company, the subsidiary company is not a member of the holding company. As, the subsidiary company was not a member of the assessee subclause

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital of the subsidiary company (except in cases where it controls the composition of the board of directors without holding majority of the shares). While the holding company is a member of its subsidiary company, the subsidiary company is not a member of the holding company. As, the subsidiary company was not a member of the assessee subclause

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

40A(9) of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is allowed. Ground No. 5 Ground No. 5 pertains to addition made by the Assessing Officer by 43. reducing the claim of depreciation made by the Appellant by INR 4,11,94,218/-. The facts relevant for adjudication of the issue for consideration are 44. that during

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

gains"; when it speaks of the transfer of "all or any rights", it expressly includes the granting of a licence in respect thereof; and it states that such transfer must be "in respect of" any copyright of any literary work. However, even where such transfer is 'in respect of" copyright, the transfer of all or any rights in relation

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

gains"; when it speaks of the transfer of "all or any rights", it expressly includes the granting of a licence in respect thereof; and it states that such transfer must be "in respect of" any copyright of any literary work. However, even where such transfer is 'in respect of" copyright, the transfer of all or any rights in relation

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

gains of the business; (iii) the\ncondition subsequent, the fulfilment of which may result in the reduction\nor even extinction of the liability, would not have the effect of converting\nthat liability into a contingent liability; (iv) a trader computing his taxable\nprofits for a particular year may properly deduct not only the payments\nactually made to his employees

L & T TECHNOLOGIES SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

9. It is mentioned during argument that slump sale and demerger are different. The Ld. AO has referred to the definition of demerger u/s. 2(19AA) and held that transaction fulfills all conditions laid down u/s. 2(19AA) of the Act. But the transaction is not regarded as transfer u/s 47 of the Act in the hands of the seller

DCIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

gains of the\nbusiness for that previous year, and the balance shall\nbe deducted in equal instalments for each of the four\nimmediately succeeding previous years.\"\n18. A bare perusal of this section would reveal that the\napplicability of this section is attracted only when the payment\nhas been made to an employee in connection with his\nvoluntary retirement

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains tax as per the provisions of section 47(iii) of the Act.\nThe AO considered the market value of PI assets, which was Rs.503.86 crores\nas the deemed sale consideration. Since the PI assets were depreciable\nassets, the AO reduced the WDV of the plant and machinery block by the\naforesaid deemed sale consideration. Considering the fact that

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains tax as per the provisions of section 47(iii) of the Act.\nThe AO considered the market value of PI assets, which was Rs.503.86 crores\nas the deemed sale consideration. Since the PI assets were depreciable\nassets, the AO reduced the WDV of the plant and machinery block by the\naforesaid deemed sale consideration. Considering the fact that

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