ADITY DALMIYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Aditya Dalmiya Vs Ito-17(1)(1), Mumbai 36, 5Th Floor, Vishnu Mahal D Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aclpd1591Q Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Shri Biren Gabhawala Respondent By Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

capital gain earned by assessee on a transaction on sale of UTl fixed maturity Plan-yearly series has been duly disclosed in the return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the AO examined the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e). Admittedly, the issue of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) was not the reason for initiation of proceedings

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

capital gains and dividend which is neither income derived from nor attributable to eligible industrial undertaking are required to be reduced as per sec. 80-I(1) from current year's profits derived by the assessee from its eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80-I(1). 5.3.7 The Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad –“A” bench

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

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

8O was not applicable, the Assessing Officer has to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A. For that purpose, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The Assessing Officer must adopt a reasonable basis

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question