THE DY CIT CIR.1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AEGIS LOGISTICS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/7825/Mum/2004,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6905/Mum/2006 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Aegis Logistics Limited Acit, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaaca 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8372/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Acit, Circle-1(1) Vs. Aegis Logistics Limited Mumbai. Mumbai-400013 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:10/03/2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 16.6.2004 Of The Cit(A)-I,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Against The Penalty Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) For The Year Under Appeal.We Will Be Deciding All The Appeals By Single Common Order.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Chemicals,Filed Its Return Of Income,On 31.12.1999,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5.97Crores.The Ao Completed Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 28.3.2002 Determin -Ing Its Income At Rs.13.93Crores. During The Course Of Hearing Before Us The Authorised Representative (Ar) Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Grounds No1.A, 1.C, 1.D & 1.E. Hence,Same Stand Dismissed, As Not Pressed.

capital gains were held as exempt. 4.2.Before us,the assessee made the same submission that were advanced before FAA and referred to pg.1-7 of the PB in that regard.He placed reliance on Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.(219ITR521).The DR supported the order of the FAA. We find that the assessee had paid professional fee with regard to slump sale

TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

capital gains, as per the provisions of Article 13 (4) of the DTAA. Is 8.6.2.In our opinion,the basic question to be decided is as to whether provisions of section 93 are applicable to the sale of Idea shares by Apex to Birla Group.Section 93 of the Act is successor of section 44D

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

capital gains at Rs.51,96,190/- instead of Rs.42,90,190/-. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or modify his ground or grounds of appeal before the hearing.” 3. Apropos disallowance of assessee’s claim for bad debts / business loss. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 4.1 The assessee has debited

DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE BERRY TRADING CO P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gains. Hence, the case squarely falls under the exception provided in Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. 3.6. In any event, loss incurred on futures and options amounting to Rs.5,19,33,951/- and Rs.12,65,977/- can never be treated as speculation 6 M/s. Blue Berry Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., loss in terms of provisions of Section

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

44D of the Act and is not to be included in the profits of the business of the assessee as computed under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession", ninety per cent of such quantum of the receipt of rent or interest will not be deducted under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. In other words

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital expenditure. Accordingly, depreciation of 25% was allowed against the same. The action of Ld. AO resulted into an addition of Rs.20.48 Lacs. 32 ITA. No. 2308&2188/Mum/2012 &C.O.76/Mum/2013(A.Y.: 2003-04) Novartis India Limited, Mumbai Consequently, similar depreciation of earlier years for Rs.18.98 Lacs was allowed to the assessee disregarding the depreciation on assets pertaining to demerged division

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

capital gains. 9.2 In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), following the order of his predecessor- in-office for the AY 1998-99 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 9.3 Before us, the Ld. counsels of the assessee rely on the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the AY 1998-99 and submit that

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

capital expenditure. Accordingly,\ndepreciation of 25% was allowed against the same. The\naction of Ld. AO resulted into an addition of Rs.20.48 Lacs.\nConsequently, similar depreciation of earlier years for\nRs.18.98 Lacs was allowed to the assessee disregarding the\ndepreciation on assets pertaining to demerged division.\n8.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the payments were in the\nnature

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE ACIT CC-35,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

ACIT C.C.- 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO INDSUTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. - 35, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

ACIT C.C. 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO FOODS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

THE ACIT CC-35 vs. M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

sections 30 to 44D have to be allowed as expenses.\nAfter including such receipts of income and after deducting such expenses,\nthe total of net receipts are profits of the business of the assessee computed\nunder the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" from which\ndeductions are to be made under Clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

sections 30 to 44D have to be allowed as expenses.\nAfter including such receipts of income and after deducting such expenses,\nthe total of net receipts are profits of the business of the assessee computed\nunder the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession\" from which\ndeductions are to be made under Clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 35, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal bearing ITA No

capital which was duly\nadmitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is\nunjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on\nproportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate\nbench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of\nITAT

GREATSHIP (INDIA ) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.6083/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Greatship (India) Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Vs. Tax-5(1)(1), Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020

44D, who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by such assessee on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent, of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid

DCIT, CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

capital loss was reported to the tune of Rs. 22,90,54,766/-. This loss was as per section 55(2)(aa) which provides that in case of issue of bonus unit, the cost for original units remains the same. The assessee contended that loss of Rs. 22,90,54,766/- was computed as per section

ITO 9(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. ANCHOR RESIDENCY P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

44D computing the income under the head "profit and gains of business" nor section 145 can be brought into operation, even if the accounting entry has been made in the books of account. V. NOT MAKING ENTRY IN BOOKS OF MAY BE INDICATIVE OF INTENTION REGARDING NON ACCRUAL / ABANDONMENT / WAIVER 1. CIT v/s. Balarampur Commercial Enterprises