ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

194C of the Act. The argument of the assessee is that the dispute pertains to\nthe sale of flats and the amount paid is a judgment debt not liable for tax deduction.\n12\nITA Nos.261 & 1022/Mum/2025\nSamir Narain Bhojwani\nIn this regard it is relevant to consider the following clauses in the order of the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOAICATES P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Hindustan Thompson Income-Tax, Circle 16(1) Associates Private Room No. 439, 4 Th Floor, Limited V. Aayakar Bhawan 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg , Churchgate Peninsula Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach1463M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. B. Srinivas (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Smt. Aarti Vissanji &, Shri. Ajit C. Shah & Ms. Aastha Shah सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1206/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.12.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018

depreciation allowance u/s 32. Then comes section 40 with the marginal note "Amounts not deductible". It starts with the non-obstante clause by providing that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the amounts specified in this section shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

194C of the Act. 20.1. We find that issue involved is identical to Ground no. 6 of appeal of A.Y.2007-08. It is informed that there is no 42 Pfizer Limited change in facts in this year. Thus, we direct the AO to follow our order of assessment year 2007-08 on this issue. 21. Ground No.5: In this ground

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATC TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VIOM NETWORKS LIMITED), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

depreciation of Rs.14.72 crores claimed on the above said amount. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of the same. 6.6 We shall now take up the next item of dispute, viz., disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessing officer disallowed

PFIZER LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation claimed under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pertaining to assets at the Appellant's Thane plant which was temporarily suspended due to labour unrest 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the concept of "block

THE ACIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation claimed under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pertaining to assets at the Appellant's Thane plant which was temporarily suspended due to labour unrest 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the concept of "block

DCIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation claimed under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pertaining to assets at the Appellant's Thane plant which was temporarily suspended due to labour unrest 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the concept of "block

PFIZER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation claimed under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pertaining to assets at the Appellant's Thane plant which was temporarily suspended due to labour unrest 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the concept of "block

JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation on other intangible assets under section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 27. The issue arising in ground No. 5, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to addition on account of disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act in respect of payment made to Mr Ashith Kampani

LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; 4[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

BAIJNATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

194C, such freight charges paid by assessee could not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) [A.Y. 2006-07]” The SLP filed against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The CBDT vide Circular No. 715, dated 08/08/1995 also clarified and in 6 reply to question No.9, with respect to payments to transporters and whether each

DCIT (TDS) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. LAQSHYA MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the other grounds viz 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the assessee by Hon’ble High Court and ITAT in the earlier proceedings and hence appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey,Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (Tds)-2(1) V. M/S. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 702, 7Th Floor Laqshya House K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Next To Rameshwer Temple Building, Charni Road Saraswati Baug, Society Road Mumbai - 400002 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai -400060 Pan: Aaacl5004C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri S. Sriram Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar

194C, wherever applicable. The Assessee, therefore, humbly submits that the AO erred in treating the Assessee as Assessee-in-default with respect to the payments made by the Assessee towards putting up of hoardings and displays and the non-deduction of TDS thereon under section 194I of the Act. 9 M/s. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd., In view of the above

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. FIRST ADVANTAGE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation thereon. The assessee has not challenged this add back before us. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has duly taken into consideration all the relevant factors for deciding the expenditure to be a revenue expenditure. In this regard, reliance placed by the assessee on the case of "Raychem RPG Ltd." (supra) is also appropriate, therein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) vis-à-vis the low net profit\ndisclosed.\n2.1 The statutory notices issued under the Act were duly\ncomplied with. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed the\nassessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2022,\nmaking additions and disallowances aggregating

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

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

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay