GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Capital Loss of INR.16,08,703/- from the Gross Total Income of INR.9,47,60,542/- computed in the body of the Assessment Order. Further, total deduction under Chapter VIA were computed at ‘Nil’ to arrive at taxable income of INR.9,31,51,839/-. Neither the Assessment Order nor the Computation Sheet attribute the denial of deduction claimed under Section

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Capital Loss of INR.16,08,703/- from the Gross Total Income of INR.9,47,60,542/- computed in the body of the Assessment Order. Further, total deduction under Chapter VIA were computed at ‘Nil’ to arrive at taxable income of INR.9,31,51,839/-. Neither the Assessment Order nor the Computation Sheet attribute the denial of deduction claimed under Section

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

80A(1) stipulates that while computing the total income of the assessee, there shall be allowed from the gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the chapter, the deduction specified in section 80C to 80U. Section 80B(5) defines the purposes of section VIA “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

80A provides : "In computing total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U." 20 Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. These are additional deductions. They are quite different in kind from deductions which fall under Chapter IV. Under section 80J what is provided is an additional deduction which

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

5) of Section 80- IA of the Act is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of the Act by treating ‘eligible business’ as the ‘only source of income’.” 25 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 21. We notice that sub-section (3) of section 80HHE which deals with the manner

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

5 ITA No.1588/M/2012 & ors. M/s. KJMC Capital Market Services Ltd. of shares in BSE Ltd., assessee stopped claiming any depreciation on the shares allotted to it. Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act 2001 with effect from 1-4-2002 to provide that the cost of equity shares allotted to a shareholder

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Capital receipt not liable to tax. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed. 5. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 6. Learned representatives fairly agree that, as rightly noted by the learned CIT(A), this issue is covered, in favour of the assessee, by the coordinate bench decisions in the assessee‟s own cases

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Capital receipt not liable to tax. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed. 5. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 6. Learned representatives fairly agree that, as rightly noted by the learned CIT(A), this issue is covered, in favour of the assessee, by the coordinate bench decisions in the assessee‟s own cases

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Capital receipt not liable to tax. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed. 5. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 6. Learned representatives fairly agree that, as rightly noted by the learned CIT(A), this issue is covered, in favour of the assessee, by the coordinate bench decisions in the assessee‟s own cases

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

80A provides : "In computing total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U." These are additional deductions. They are quite different in kind from deductions which fall under Chapter IV. Under section 80J what is provided is an additional deduction which is calculated as a percentage

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Rockline Developers P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(2) 801, Hubtown Solaris Mumbai Vs. N.S. Phadke Marg, Off. Teli Gali Andheri (E), Mumbai 400069 Pan – Aaacr4467F Appellant Respondent

Capital gains’ and ‘Income from other sources’. After computing the income under the different heads as per the provisions of sections 14 to 59, there are certain income of other persons which are to be included in assessee’s total income. They are being dealt with under sections 60 to 65 of the Act. Section 66 lays down that

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

5(2) (1), Mumbai,\nVs Room No. 571, 5th Floor,\nAayakarBhavan, M.K. Road,\nMumbai - 400020.\nRespondent / Revenue\nShri Rakesh Joshi, CA\nMs. NeenaJeph, CIT-DR &\nShri BhagirathRamawant, Sr. DR\n02.10.2024\n22.12.2025\n30.01.2026\nOrder under section 254 (1) of Income Tax Act\nPER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER:\n1. These two appeals by Revenue and cross-objections therein by assessee are\ndirected

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

5. The only other ground on merits is against the confirmation of ad hoc addition of ₹ 81,405/-. Apart from this, the assessee has also challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the AO. It can be seen from the reasons recorded by the AO that he took up the re-assessment proceedings on account of excess 16 ITA NO.3135

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

5. The only other ground on merits is against the confirmation of ad hoc addition of ₹ 81,405/-. Apart from this, the assessee has also challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the AO. It can be seen from the reasons recorded by the AO that he took up the re-assessment proceedings on account of excess 16 ITA NO.3135

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

5. The only other ground on merits is against the confirmation of ad hoc addition of ₹ 81,405/-. Apart from this, the assessee has also challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the AO. It can be seen from the reasons recorded by the AO that he took up the re-assessment proceedings on account of excess 16 ITA NO.3135

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

capital asset, being share of a special purpose vehicle to a business trust in exchange of units allotted by that trust referred to in clause (xvii) of section 47; or (B) notional gain resulting from any change in carrying amount of said units; or (C) gain on transfer of units referred to in clause (xvii) of section

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

capital asset, being share of a special purpose vehicle to a business trust in exchange of units allotted by that trust referred to in clause (xvii) of section 47; or (B) notional gain resulting from any change in carrying amount of said units; or (C) gain on transfer of units referred to in clause (xvii) of section

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

5] Further, the language appearing in section 80-1B is 'profit and gains derived from any business'. Therefore, the test of proximity, i.e., direct nexus with the industrial activity is not necessary while claiming a deduction under section 80-1B. [Para 5.2] In the circumstances, the judgment of the Tribunal deserved to be sustained." The Hon'ble Madhya