MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

119 TAXMAN 91 (DELHI) is under: "7. In the instant case, as noticed above, exemption under section 11 was disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

119 TAXMAN 91 (DELHI) is under: "7. In the instant case, as noticed above, exemption under section 11 was disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

119 TAXMAN 91 (DELHI) is under: "7. In the instant case, as noticed above, exemption under section 11 was disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

119 TAXMAN 91 (DELHI) is under: "7. In the instant case, as noticed above, exemption under section 11 was disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

depreciation, when the Delhi High Court in the case of Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs CIT 76 DTR (Ker) 372 case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs CIT 76 DTR (Ker) 372 case

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

119(2)(b) by the competent authority, and that since the issue originated from the intimation under section 143(1) and an appeal is pending before the Ld. CIT(A), the same cannot be examined in the present proceedings. The dispute thus centres on the nature of Form 10-IC, the scope of appellate jurisdiction to determine the correct rate

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

2). The amount of depreciation and business loss remaining unabsorbed at the end of the tax holiday period should be determined so that the same may be set off against the income post-tax holiday period. 24.Chapter VI deals with the aggregation of income and set off or carry forward of loss. Section 72(1) deals with the carry forward

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

2, Pg. 155, Argument of Assessee – Para 8, Pg. 161, Held: Para 12, Pg. 154-169 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) 65. The Appellant further submits that doing business through subsidiaries/JVs is also recognized legal business concept. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. State of UP and Others VsRenusagar Power Co. and Others

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

2, Pg. 155, Argument of Assessee – Para 8, Pg. 161, Held: Para 12, Pg. 154-169 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) 65. The Appellant further submits that doing business through subsidiaries/JVs is also recognized legal business concept. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. State of UP and Others VsRenusagar Power Co. and Others

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Depreciation Other Administrative & Operational Expenses 82,522 3,36,835 11,10,867 29,288 8,23,481 28,51,722 1,44,58,462 Total Exhibition Expenses (B) Net Deficit from Exhibition Activities (A-B) 29,39,86,532 86,13,75,329 1,00,82,20,002 (1,50,98,894) 8. The Ld.AR further argued that

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

119) . However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. The copy of balance-sheet dated 31.03.2008 is on the file which lies at page no. 46 of the paper book. The balance-sheet speaks that the assessee was having its share capital

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES - INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT (A-I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from Mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from