ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. MAANRAJ TRADING P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 3414/Mum/2009 : (A.Y : 2005-06) M/S Maanraj Trading Pvt. Ltd Vs. Acit Cir 6(3) Poonam Chambers, 101E, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 018 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaacm0150 Mumbai – 400 020

capital gain and there is no material on records to show that in all those cases the only business of the assessee was income from purchase and sales of mutual funds/shares/units, therefore, we are of the view that the decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present

DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. NOCIL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit 1(2), Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Nocil Limited, Mafatlal House, 3Rd Floor, Ht Parekh Marg, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai -400 020 .... Respondent

Section 147 is bad-in-law and has to be quashed”. 4. Although the Revenue has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, but in sum and substance, the singular issue raised by the Revenue is against the decision of the CIT(A) in holding that the provisions of Sec. 72A(4) of the Act are not attracted with regard

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL -JOINT -DEPUTY-ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- ITO, DELHI

72A(2) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the same. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously relied on the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act to deny deduction of depreciation of Rs 4,38,18,551 in calculating

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

72A(2) of the Act and the Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in not allowing the same.\n6.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) erroneously relied on the sixth proviso to Section\n32(1) of the Act to deny deduction of depreciation of Rs\n4,38,18,551 in calculating

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

capital gains offered thereon and registration of the said property was also done ITA No. 769 & 1954/Mum/2008 M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai. in A.Y. 2002-03, the ownership of the said property does not vest with the assessee company. Similarly, the assessee company had entered into a purchase agreement with Morarjee Goculdas Spinning and Weaving

KEVA FRGRANCES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 4 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

72A: Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger, etc vii) Section 47 (vii): Exemption of capital gains

THE DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

72A(2) as applicable for A.Y.2003-04 are reproduced as under:- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the accumulated loss shall not be set off or carried forward and the unabsorbed depreciation shall not be allowed in the assessment of the amalgamated company- (i) holds continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

Gains of\nBusiness or Profession\".\n7. Thus, from perusal of section 37(1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid\nprovision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does\nnot contain a requirement that there has to be a pay out. If an expenditure\nhas been incurred, provision of section

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 (1) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

72A(2) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the same. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously relied on the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act to deny deduction of depreciation of Rs 4,38,18,551 in calculating

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

72A(2) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the same. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously relied on the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act to deny deduction of depreciation of Rs 4,38,18,551 in calculating

DCIT, CIRCLE.6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CYQUATOR MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, overall, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Cyquator Media R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Building, Road, Mumbai-400020. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Cross Objection No. 302/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Cyquator Media Services बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4478/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Cyquator Media बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 135, Continental Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp0069P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali/Ms. Slachi Jain Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) & Mr. R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2023 C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

capital infusion from a Mauritius based company after complying with all relevant statutory regulations & compliances. However, because the value of investment was large and the shares were issued at high premium, the AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions and added it u/s 68 on the Act. The AO further noted that there were several layers of entities involved behind

CYQUATOR MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE .6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, overall, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Cyquator Media R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Building, Road, Mumbai-400020. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Cross Objection No. 302/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Cyquator Media Services बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4478/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Cyquator Media बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 135, Continental Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp0069P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali/Ms. Slachi Jain Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) & Mr. R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2023 C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

capital infusion from a Mauritius based company after complying with all relevant statutory regulations & compliances. However, because the value of investment was large and the shares were issued at high premium, the AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions and added it u/s 68 on the Act. The AO further noted that there were several layers of entities involved behind

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

capital cost, which is the basis for determining the subsidy, being only a measure adopted under the scheme to quantify the financial aid, is not a payment, directly or indirectly, to meet any portion of the 'actual cost'. The expression 'actual cost' in section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961, needs to be interpreted liberally. Such a subsidy

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

gain. The expression \"capital asset\" is defined in\nsection 2 (14) to mean \"property of any kind held by an assessee\".\nIt is of the widest amplitude, and apparently covers all kinds of\nproperty except the property expressly excluded by clauses (i) to\n(iv)of the sub-section which, it will be seen, does not include good\nwill

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

gain. The expression \"capital asset\" is defined in\nsection 2 (14) to mean \"property of any kind held by an assessee\".\nIt is of the widest amplitude, and apparently covers all kinds of\nproperty except the property expressly excluded by clauses (i) to\n(iv)of the sub-section which, it will be seen, does not include good\nwill

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BRANDON & CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

gain on tenancy rights. It was claimed that the full details of loss incurred during the year have already been furnished before AO vide letter dated. 14.10.2014. Time and again, it was claimed that the loss relating to this very assessee and the same has been set off as per the provisions of section 74 of the Act, which

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

Gains of\nBusiness or Profession\".\n7. Thus, from perusal of section 37(1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid\nprovision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does\nnot contain a requirement that there has to be a pay out. If an expenditure\nhas been incurred, provision of section

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

72A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the intention of the legislature was that the property should include all assets pertaining to the undertaking. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that section

JUST DIAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

72A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the intention of the legislature was that the property should include all assets pertaining to the undertaking. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that section