ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

43B\nof the Act has been allowed, Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee\nhas been rendered infructuous. In view of the aforesaid submission,\nGround No. 1 to 1.2 raised by the Assessee is dismissed as\ninfructuous.\n7.\nGround No. 2\n\"2.\nDepreciation on let out property\n2.1.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case

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

43B, computation of\ncapital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source, and levy\nof interest under sections 234B and 234C. Additions and\ndisallowances were made year-wise, and penalty proceedings\nunder section 270A were initiated wherever applicable.\n4. Aggrieved by the respective assessment orders, the assessee\ncarried the matters in appeal before the CIT(A).Before

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

section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source, and levy of interest under sections

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections or in sections 28 to [43B

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections or in sections 28 to [43B

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections or in sections 28 to [43B

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections or in sections 28 to [43B

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

43B, computation of\ncapital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source, and levy\nof interest under sections 234B and 234C. Additions and\ndisallowances were made year-wise, and penalty proceedings\nunder section 270A were initiated wherever applicable.\n4. Aggrieved by the respective assessment orders, the assessee\ncarried the matters in appeal before the CIT(A).Before

VALUABLE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAC (APPEALS)-11 PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Valuable Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cit(A)-11, Dcit Central Circle 1 Plot No. 53/1 Media Info Park, Road, Thane, Ashok It Park 6Th Floor, No.7, Midc, Near Akruti Trade Vs. Ward No. -16, Wagle Industrial Centre, Andheri (East), Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaccv 2732 P Appellant Respondent

capital gains u/s 74 of the Income Tax Act and disallowing the same under section 72(1) of the Income Tax Act and disallowing the same under section 72(1) of the Income Tax Act and disallowing the same under section 72(1) of the Income Tax Act. Income Tax Act. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that

ACIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

capital gain and therefore, expenditure therefore, expenditure connected thereon cannot be held to be cannot be held to be related to the business of the assessee related to the business of the assessee. This appears to be a appears to be a factual error on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) n the part

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)

gains of business or profession” was contrary to the accounting principles laid down by Accounting Standard-2 (for short “AS2”); (ii). that the ICAI had issued “Guidance Note on Tax Audit under Section 44AB of the I-T Act”, which specifically requires the formats in which information as regards the valuation of purchases, sales and inventories under both inclusive

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)

gains of business or profession” was contrary to the accounting principles laid down by Accounting Standard-2 (for short “AS2”); (ii). that the ICAI had issued “Guidance Note on Tax Audit under Section 44AB of the I-T Act”, which specifically requires the formats in which information as regards the valuation of purchases, sales and inventories under both inclusive

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI-400021 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

capital\nasset, (ii) IND-AS 23 has given specific exclusion for the entire\nmanufacturing or producing in large quantity on a repetitive basis\nfor the purpose of valuing the closing stock, and (iii) Press release\nof Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 02/01/2015, which is relied by\n23\nITA Nos. 3195-3196, 3911-3913 & 4579/Mum/2019\n& ITA Nos. 266 & 806/Mum/2020\nAYs

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 43B, consistent with the Department's stand. 2. On the fact and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 99,02,963/- towards interest paid to Income Tax Department during the previous year and failed to follow the decision of Mumbai ITAT

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Gains of Business or Profession" therefore, the assessee cannot make the claim that it is allowable as per section 43(2) based on what is debited in the books of accounts. The ld. DR further submitted that when the assessee is liable to pay the rent as per the agreement which is accounted as per accounting standard -19 cannot

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Gains of Business or Profession" therefore, the assessee cannot make the claim that it is allowable as per section 43(2) based on what is debited in the books of accounts. The ld. DR further submitted that when the assessee is liable to pay the rent as per the agreement which is accounted as per accounting standard -19 cannot

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

Gains arising due to Exchange Rate Variation on Foreign Loans used for creating indigenous assets to be allowed as deduction under 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while computing the taxable income. Additional ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal and to submit such