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

Capital Gains which were inadvertently included in the return. The Tribunal observed as 13 follows: “Moreover, if the assessee is, otherwise, entitled to a claim of deduction but due to his ignorance or for some other reason could not claim the same in the return of income, but has raised his claim before the appellate authority, the appellate authority should

USHA K. SINGHANIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 30/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

sections 2(42A), 2(42B), 111A etc. would be rendered otiose. It was further submitted that in other words, an assessee can have only one class of capital gain and that is LTCG, because all the capital gain arising from holding shares for a period less than one year would be treated as business income and as per contention

IL&FS INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

80M at Rs.9,88,95,628/-. Aggrieved\nwith the order of CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nclaiming that it was eligible for full deduction u/s.80M of the Act. It was further\nstated that the assessee was entitled to set off the business loss against income\nassessable under the head ‘capital gains' arising from short

IL&FS INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

80M at Rs.9,88,95,628/-. Aggrieved\nwith the order of CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nclaiming that it was eligible for full deduction u/s.80M of the Act. It was further\nstated that the assessee was entitled to set off the business loss against income\nassessable under the head ‘capital gains' arising from short

DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 8, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

capital gains and depreciation, the AO has conducted enquiries and the assessee had also submitted the detailed explanations and evidently the claim was allowed by the AO on being satisfied with the explanations of the assessee. Therefore, the learned CIT in the present case has wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on all the issues raised

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

capital gains). Under Section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under Section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set off against income under

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. SONATA INVESTMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains Tax, though originally he had subjected himself to the said tax as per his return of income. The AO is directed to process the claim of refund in this respect as per provisions of the law.” 21. In view of the above observation, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) though, rightly admitted the question

REL UTILITY ENGIMEERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains Tax, though originally he had subjected himself to the said tax as per his return of income. The AO is directed to process the claim of refund in this respect as per provisions of the law.” 21. In view of the above observation, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) though, rightly admitted the question

ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

80M of the Act. ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013 c. Expenses disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) read with section 37(1) of the Act. d. Claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. But, the CIT(A) sustained the reopening on the issue of claim of bad debts by observing in Para 6.13 to 6.26 as under: - “6.13 Coming

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

80M of the Act. ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013 c. Expenses disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) read with section 37(1) of the Act. d. Claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. But, the CIT(A) sustained the reopening on the issue of claim of bad debts by observing in Para 6.13 to 6.26 as under: - “6.13 Coming

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT- 19 , MUMBA

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhindustrial Development Bank Of Joint Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, Icbi Tower, –Tax, Range -19, 4Th Floor, Wtc Complex, Cuff 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Prade, Mumbai-400005 Mumbai-400020 Vs Pan: Aaci 1105 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Ar Respondent By : Sh. Awungshi Ginson ( Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income

section 80M to 1% of the dividend income. In the result, the assessee succeeded on this ground of appeal. 20 IDBI (ITA No. 3626/M/2001) AY 1997-98 21. Ground No. 4 relates to profit on sale of investment treated as Business Income. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the A.O. has assessed the income from sale of shares

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)

gain of Rs. 53,52,891 or such other lesser figure than has been assessed as is held correct as a result of the transfer of Plot no. GROUND NO. 7 The learned CIT(A) has with respect to the international transaction pertaining to export of Rifampacin to associated enterprises, erred in not adopting the 'class of transactions approach

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

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

80M was in respect of dividend received by a domestic company from another domestic company. The extent of the deduction was, however, subject to a monetary ceiling, the ceiling being that the deduction should not exceed the amount distributed by way of dividend on or before the due date for the filing of return. The Assessing Officer by adverting

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

80M was in respect of dividend received by a domestic company from another domestic company. The extent of the deduction was, however, subject to a monetary ceiling, the ceiling being that the deduction should not exceed the amount distributed by way of dividend on or before the due date for the filing of return. The Assessing Officer by adverting

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

80M and 80-0. The order of the CIT(A) on this issue is accordingly set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 29.2 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, these grounds, namely 27 to 30 A, are allowed‖. Respectfully following the earlier order of the Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

80M and 80-0. The order of the CIT(A) on this issue is accordingly set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 29.2 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, these grounds, namely 27 to 30 A, are allowed‖. Respectfully following the earlier order of the Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

capital gains and payment of advance tax in relation thereto. Considering the same, the matter is remitted to the file of the AO to recompute the interest u/s 234C taking into consideration the TDS as well as the proviso to section 234C of the Act. The ground of appeal is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result