DCIT - 20(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. J.B. ENGG. WORKS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

capital gains in terms of section 29 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which says that income referred to in section 28 shall be computed 24 J.B. Eng. Works in accordance with the provisions contained in section 30 to 43D

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Capital Gains on the sale of depreciable immovable property invoking Section 50C.", "held": "The Tribunal considered the grounds raised by the assessee and the Revenue. Grounds 1, 2, and 3 of the assessee were withdrawn and dismissed. Ground 4, regarding addition under Section 41(1), was set aside to the AO for de novo consideration in the interest of natural

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

gains of business or profession subject to the amount appropriated to the special reserve account created and maintained by the assessee. Thus if the business income is increased on account of disallowances, the deduction would consequentially increase restricted to the amount carried to the special reserve account in the said year. In the aforesaid assessment year, since the business income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

43D and the said decision are not applicable in the present case? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the interest even when the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd and jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Aurinpro Solution

DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

43D and the said decision are not applicable in the present case? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the interest even when the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd and jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Aurinpro Solution

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

43D and the said decision are not applicable in the present case? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the interest even when the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd and jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Aurinpro Solution

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gain arising from the said transfer by adopting the\nstamp duty valuation. We, therefore, answer the question referred to this\nspecial bench in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the\nassesse.\"\n13.2We find that the hon'ble Special Bench while interpreting the\nsections 50 and 50C of the Act w.r.t. applicability in respect of depreciable\nassets

SUNSHIELD CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

capital gains cannot be allowed. The AO then referred to provisions of Section 29 and 32(2) of the Act to come to the conclusion that if there is no income under the head ‘profits and gains of business’ or where the profit under the head business is less than the depreciation allowable u/s 32(1) of the Act, then

BSI SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

sections from s.30to 43D. The interpretation that after amendment, bad debt is allowable as and when assessee writes off the debt in the books of account is not acceptable as any assessee who had substantial income as on year end can write off debt from available sundry debtors to the extent of profit and claim deduction of bad debt, thus

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

43D and depreciation will be levied as per section 32 of the Act. Further, section 80AB has been inserted in the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act No 2 and effective from 01.04.1981. 6. As the case under contention pertains to AY 1997-98, therefore section 80AB will be applicable in assessee's case.The case cited by assessee counsel

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

sections 30 to 43D can be allowed as the receipts are chargeable to tax either under the head ‘Capital Gains

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

gains of 8 Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd the business or profession referred to in section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D. Therefore, in computing the income from business, the provisions section 41 of the Act would be applicable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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 HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED -INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

43D of the Act. This policy\nhas been consistently followed by the bank.\nWe\ntrust that the above meets with your requirements. If you need any further\ninformation, please let us know.\nYours faithfully,\nAnand Shukla\nSenior Vice President\nTax\nEncl: a/a\n5.3. In the notice forming part of the financial statements of India\nBranches, the assessee explained as under

SHRI HARBANS SINGH BAWA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 17(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiharbans Singh Bawa Vs. Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, 410, Jolly Bhavan No.1 10, New Marine Lines Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent) & Harbans Singh Bawa Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 112, Free Press House Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent)

capital assets.) (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) or sub section(2), where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head Profits and gains of business or profession is a loss and the assessee has income assessable under the head Salaries, the assesse shall not be entitled to have such loss

SHRI HARBANS SINGH BAWA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY CIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiharbans Singh Bawa Vs. Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, 410, Jolly Bhavan No.1 10, New Marine Lines Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent) & Harbans Singh Bawa Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 112, Free Press House Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent)

capital assets.) (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) or sub section(2), where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head Profits and gains of business or profession is a loss and the assessee has income assessable under the head Salaries, the assesse shall not be entitled to have such loss

M/S SAVATEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

gain. The Appellant has sold property wroth Rs 1, 5000, OOO/- and has claimed indexation u/s 48. The property sold by the Appellant was not an inherited property, it was a tenancy right which was purchased by the Appellant and hence it was Intangible Capital assets for the Appellant. In books of account the property was shown as an Intangible

SUNBEAM MONOCHEM P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (A)-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.624/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Sunbeam Monochem Pvt. बिधम/ Pcit-8 Ltd. Room No. 611, 6Th Floor, Vs. 201/B, Runwal & Omkar Aayakar Bhavan, Esquare, Opp Sion Maharshi Karve Road, Chunabhatti Signal, Eastern Mumbai-400020. Express Highway, Sion East, Mumbai-400022. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs8172P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 26.02.2021 For Assessment Year 2015- 16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

43D of the Act, including section 37 of the Act. 16 A.Y. 2015-16 Sunbeam Monachem Pvt. Ltd. 17. From the facts placed before us, it is noted that assessee had claimed the expenses of Rs.78,47,609/- by way of current repairs under Section 30, 31 or 37 of the Act as it did not result in creation

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

43D of the Act. This policy\nhas been consistently followed by the bank.\nWe\ntrust that the above meets with your requirements. If you need any further\ninformation, please let us know.\nYours faithfully,\nA\nAnand Shukla\nSenior Vice President\ncopy\nTax\n9\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 2201/Mum/2024\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 2202/Mum/2024