TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

delay had to be condoned. 12 Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. (ii) That the normal rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute, A careful analysis of section 33AC shows that the deduction contemplated under section 33AC is related not to the asset possessed at the time

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, CIRCLR-2,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Shri Jehangir Mistry, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the order passed by PCIT under section 263 of the Act was received by the assessee on 24/02/2020. On account of COVID-19 Pandemic the appeal could not be filed within a period of 60 days from the date

BHARAT PRTROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Shri Jehangir Mistry, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the order passed by PCIT under section 263 of the Act was received by the assessee on 24/02/2020. On account of COVID-19 Pandemic the appeal could not be filed within a period of 60 days from the date

HUNT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LLC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INT TAXATION,2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 916/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2015-16) Hunt International Investments Llc 205-206, Regent Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Road, 208, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aadch0520J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle International Taxation-2(1)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. A.N. Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Anil Sant, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2023 Passed Under Section 144C(13)/143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Sh. A.N. Shah Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Is A Tax Resident Of Usa. The Assessee Is A Registered Foreign Portfolio Investor [Category-Iii]. The Assessee Primarily Invests In Shares To Earn Long Term

condone delay in filing of the objections, hence, the DRP rightly rejected the objections on the ground of limitation. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Inno Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs. DRP-2(2018) 96 taxmann.com 646 (Madras). 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined