TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

capital expenditure. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted before the AO that it has debited Rs.8,42,189/- as EDP expenses and included it in ‘Miscellaneous Expenses’. The AO following the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arawali Constructions (P) Ltd. 259 ITR 30 (Raj) disallowed the said

ADDL CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. MANGALORE REFINER & PETROCHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1240/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Maker Tower-F Wing, 16Th Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Pan:Aaacm 5132 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1826/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Vs. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai. Mumbai-400 005. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chohan-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:S/ Shri S.E. Dastur & Madhur Aggarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:17/05/2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 15/12/2009,Of Cit (A)-7,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year.Assessee- Company, Engaged In The Business Of Refining Of Crude Oil, Selling Of Petroleum Products & Captive Generation & Distribution Of Power, Filed Its Return Of Income On 25/10/2006, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 18/12/2008, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.Nil.

44B. 6.3.2.It is said that the Act,being a taxing statute,has to be understood by reference to its language and that it is not the function of the judicial forums to stretch a taxing statute to rope in items of income which are not explicitly covered by the relevant taxing provision. No income can be brought to taxation

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

44B or section 44BB or section 12 M/s. Rockline Developers Pvt. Ltd. 44BBA or section 44BBB and such income has been offered to tax at the rates specified in those sections. Explanation 5.—For the purposes of sub-section (2), the expression "securities" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (h) of section

AVANA GLOBAL FZCO,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains being computed in accordance with\nthe provisions of the Act), as the receipts so accruing or arising bear to the total\nreceipts of the business, or\n(iii) in such other manner as the 82[Assessing Officer] may deem suitable.”\n14. Section 44B of the Act and Rule 10, referred hereinabove are to be\nread comprehensively with the provisions

GROUP INDIA P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

44B or section 44BB or section 44BBA or section 44BBB and such income has been offered to tax at the rates specified in those sections.] ITA No.2348 & 2350/Mum/2017 13 91[Explanation 5].—For the purposes of sub-section (2), the expression "securities" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities

SI GROUP INDIA P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

44B or section 44BB or section 44BBA or section 44BBB and such income has been offered to tax at the rates specified in those sections.] ITA No.2348 & 2350/Mum/2017 13 91[Explanation 5].—For the purposes of sub-section (2), the expression "securities" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities

DCIT (IT) 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO. SA ( MSC), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

section 44B of the Act. In this regard, a reference can usefully be made to the DTAA between India and Libya which has no clause prescribing the tax treatment for capital gains

DCIT (IT) 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MSC MEDITERANEAN SHIPPING CO. SA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit(It)3(2)(2), Mumbai – Vs. M/S. Msc Mediterranean 400 038 Shipping Co. Sa C/O. Msc Agency India (India) Pvt. Ltd., Msc House, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4945P Appellant) .. Respondent) Co No.137/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year :2011-12) M/S. Msc Vs. Dcit(It)3(2)(2), Mumbai – 400 Mediterranean Shipping 038 Co. Sa C/O. Msc Agency India (India) Pvt. Ltd., Msc House, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4945P Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Narendra Kumar Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar

section 44B of the Act. In this regard, a reference can usefully be made to the DTAA between India and Libya which has no clause prescribing the tax treatment for capital gains

NAN LIAN SHIP MANAGEMENT LLC,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD)(INT TAX)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenan Lian Ship Management Llc V. Jcit (Osd) (Intl. Tax) – 3(3)(1) 303, The Atrium Center Room No. 1630, 16Th Floor Khalid Bin Al Walled Road Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Bur Dubai Po Box No. 82289 Dubai, Uae Nan Lian Ship Management Llc C/O. Nishit M. Gandhi Chambers 2 & 3, Ground Floor Cosmos Trade Place, Khatau Building Alkesh Dinesh Mody Marg Opp. Bombay Stock Exchange Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aagcn0478E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 44B. 11. What is to be seen is, whether the assessee has given use or right to use the ship to PSCL and the payment received for time charter services falls within the ambit and definition of Clause (iva) (supra) or not. The relevant clauses of Time Charter agreement as noted and analysed by the AO reads as under

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

44B and 172 of the Act 1961." 11. We are unable to agree with the above view of this Court in Orient (Goa)(P) Ltd. (supra). This is for the reason that the respondent- assessee placed reliance upon Section 172 of the Act in respect of payments made by it to a non-resident shipping company by way of demurrage

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

44B and 172 of the Act 1961." 11. We are unable to agree with the above view of this Court in Orient (Goa)(P) Ltd. (supra). This is for the reason that the respondent- assessee placed reliance upon Section 172 of the Act in respect of payments made by it to a non-resident shipping company by way of demurrage

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4448/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mangalore Refinery & Addl Cit 3(2) Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Tower, E- Vs. Wing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4436/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit-3(2) Mangalore Refinery & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Tower, E-Wing, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Madhur Agrawal /Ronak Desai प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Samuel Darse सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08/06/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.

capitalized to the Assets. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. GROUND VI: Addition on account of provision for advances doubtful of recovery under normal provisions of the Act: Rs. 3,14,60,094/- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in respect to addition on account

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

capital assets/property situate in India. To do so, would amount to changing the content and ambit of Section 9(1)(i).” 87. In the present case also, Linde has contended that it being nonresident is not liable to pay tax in India and the sweep of Section 9(1) of the Act cannot be extended to income whch

SMIT SINGAPOARE PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodsmit Singapore Pte Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Srbc & Associates, Of Income-Tax (I.T.)-4(2)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai- 400028 Pan – Aaocs1031L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R Respondent By: Shri Sanjay Singh & Shri T.S. Khaisa, Cit, D.Rs Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2020

44B of the Act was not satisfied. 5. On being queried by the A.O as to whether its receipts from time charter of the vessel fell within the ambit of Sec. 44BB of the Act, the assessee answered in the affirmative. Elaborating on his aforesaid reply, it was submitted by the assessee that considering the pith and substance

NAN LION SHIP MANAGEMENT LLC,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Acit (Int. Tax) – 3(3)(1), Nan Lian Ship Management 1630, 16Th Floor, Air India Llc Building Nariman Point, C/O- Chamber 2 & 3, Cosmos बिधम/ Mumbai-400 021 Trade Place, Ground Floor, Vs. Khatu Building, Opp-Bse, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcn0478E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi /Dhanlaxmi Iyer, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Das, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.11.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.05.2022, Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 2

section 44B. 11. What is to be seen is, whether the assessee has given use or right to use the ship to PSCL and the payment received for time charter services falls within the ambit and definition of Clause (iva) (supra) or not. The relevant clauses of Time Charter agreement as noted and analysed by the AO reads as under

MMA OFFSHORE ASIA VESSEL OPERATIONS PTE LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

44B of IT Act. In case you fail to do so, please treat this as\nshow cause for denying the deemed income provision under\nAs per said agreement, the period of charter of vessel is 60 days. Submit the date of\nmobilisation of vessel and total period under which vessel was chartered to charterer\nunder said agreement.”\n10.3