DCIT 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KILITCH HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

JAEE VISHWAS JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE-21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodjaee Vishwas Joshi Vs. Acit,Circle-21(1) 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan 1002, Om Co-Op.Housing Society Limited Bkc M.B.Raut Road Mumbai-400 051 Shivaji Park, Dadar Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aelpa7074L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 144A stand violated rendering order bad in law. Detailed grounds attached. 3. Botched up investigation by ADIT and A.O. - Transactions between the appellant and Avron and Sarvottam took place in F.Y. 2010-11. Investigation by ADIT(lnv.) was done in F. Y. 2017-18. Further investigation was done by A.O. in the F.Y. 2018-19. Thus there

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

144A of the Act. The appellant submits that the directions of the Add!. CIT in this regard are reproduced hereunder:- "1. It is seen that assessee has claimed Depreciation as per I. T. Act at Rs. 8, 65, 52, 484/- as against Depreciation as per Companies Act of just Rs.18,17,815/-. While perusing the Depreciation Schedule

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

144A; 8 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Commissioner

DEUTSCHE INVESTMENTS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

depreciation on value of investment, which are subject matter of the CIT's deliberation under section 263 order where detailed in the notes. In this regard learned counsel of the assessee submitted that honourable Bombay High Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. ACIT (W.P No. 271 of 2018 vide order dated 18.6.2018) has held that

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,VILE PARLE vs. ACIT, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrianikesh Banerjee, Jm A.Y.2013-14 Ashok Kumar Pandey, Acit, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.37, Kautaliaya Bhavan, Kavita, Vithal Nagar, Income Tax Department, Vs. Chs, Ltd., Vithal Nagar, N.S. Road No.11 J.V.P.D. Scheme, Vile Parle.

144A on 18.02.2016 wherein the learned Joint Commissioner after calling report from the Assessing Officer held as under: (i) The assessee is a Managing Director of the Company and is actively participating in the affairs of the company. (ii) Assessee has made investment in mutual funds and also shares in India deriving dividend and capital gains. (iii) Income derived

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CICLE-8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner

IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,MUMBAI, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-5, AYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144A;(ii)an order\nmade by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the\nperformance of the functions of an Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders\nor directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or\nChief Commissioner

ITO 10 (1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAILASHNATH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

144A and remand report, it can be seen that AO has recorded the reasons for reopening and referred that reopening was made under the directions from the CCIT to examine the premium at which shares were issued. Remand report on this issue is evasive and does not address the objection of the appellant. As has been seen from the catena

MUMBAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

depreciation in the valuation was not debited to the Profit & Loss A/c but was debited to investment fluctuation fund in the Balance Sheet under the head “Reserves Funds and Other Reserves”. The Assessing Officer without examining the facts in detail merely granted deduction to the assessee without 6 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. looking into whether

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 4373/Mum/2005 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

section 115JA of Rs. 19,51,38,035/-. 13. We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue and ld. AR of the assessee. Ld. DR for Revenue supported the order of AO and prayed that order of CIT(A) may be set- aside and that order of AO may be restored. On the other hand, ld. AR for assessee argued

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL - 1, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

depreciation under Sec.32 of the Act and also deduction under Sec.80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. D.R contended that the clause does not have any relevance as any claim under Sec. 80IA of the Act has to be allowed upon fulfilment of certain conditions and not on the basis of certificate given by the third party