M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

depreciation and financial expenses. 11.9 In both the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer held that the respondent- assessee had not commenced business activities as they had not undertaken any manufacturing activity or made downstream investments. It was observed that the respondent-assessee, after receiving approval of Foreign Investment Promotion Soard (FIPS) dated 20.12.2000 acquired shares capital of Ambuja Cement India

AIROIL FLAREGAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm श्री जी.एस. पन्नू, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रववश सूद सदस्य Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ M/S Airoli Flaregas India Pvt.Ltd, 204/205, Sumer Kendra, Income Tax -6(1), Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Worli, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 M/S Airoli Flaregas India बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd, Range 6(1), Vs. Mumbai-400018. Mumbai. ऱेखा सं.:Pan : Aacca2737M अपीऱधर्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Durga Dutt प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Anuj Kishnadwalla सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.5.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.5.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.S.Pannu: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-14, Mumbai, Dated 27.09.2013 Which In Turn Has Arisen

depreciation as per rules with respect to the impugned capital expenditure. 10. In the result, in so far as, Ground no.1 of the assessee is concerned, the same is dismissed and that of revenue is allowed. 11. In so far as ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal is concerned, the same relates to disallowance of Rs.48,440/- out of interest

ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AIROIL FLAREGAS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm श्री जी.एस. पन्नू, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रववश सूद सदस्य Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ M/S Airoli Flaregas India Pvt.Ltd, 204/205, Sumer Kendra, Income Tax -6(1), Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Worli, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 M/S Airoli Flaregas India बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd, Range 6(1), Vs. Mumbai-400018. Mumbai. ऱेखा सं.:Pan : Aacca2737M अपीऱधर्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Durga Dutt प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Anuj Kishnadwalla सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.5.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.5.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.S.Pannu: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-14, Mumbai, Dated 27.09.2013 Which In Turn Has Arisen

depreciation as per rules with respect to the impugned capital expenditure. 10. In the result, in so far as, Ground no.1 of the assessee is concerned, the same is dismissed and that of revenue is allowed. 11. In so far as ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal is concerned, the same relates to disallowance of Rs.48,440/- out of interest

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

194I of the Act and there is no allegation that this TDS is not deposited with the Government account. We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs, one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

194I of the Act and there is no allegation that this TDS is not deposited with the Government account. We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs, one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

194I of the Act and there is no allegation that this TDS is not deposited with the Government account. We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs, one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

194I of the Act and there is no allegation that this TDS is not deposited with the Government account. We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs, one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee

S. KUMARS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

194I, the payments were disallowed proportionately invoking the provisions of M/s S. Kumars Ltd. section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal held that where tax was deducted by the assessee, though under a bonafide wrong impression under wrong provisions, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked and that if there was any shortfall due to any difference

S. KUMARS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

194I, the payments were disallowed proportionately invoking the provisions of M/s S. Kumars Ltd. section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal held that where tax was deducted by the assessee, though under a bonafide wrong impression under wrong provisions, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked and that if there was any shortfall due to any difference

LOTUS ENERGY (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT RG 8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4355/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S Lotus Energy (India) Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Ltd., Tax- Range 8, V. 409, Laxmi Plaza, 2 Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Laxmi Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Mumbai -400053. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcl6119K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section Amount (Rs) under which the tax was deductible 1 Ground Rent paid to Visa Industries 194I 34,94,512/- Ltd. And Balaji Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2 Wharfage charges Visa Industries 194C 5,65,974 Ltd. And Balaji Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3 Stevedoring charges paid to Visa 194C 16,68,998/- industries Ltd. And Balaji Coke Industries

DCIT 8 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA TELESERVICES (MAH.) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2012-2013

194I of the Act and, consequently, the provisions of section 201 and section 201(IA) could not be applied? (b) Without prejudice to the above, whet her, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, payment of wheeling and transmission charges to the entitles like MSETCL and P G CIL, should have been treated

STOCK TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT OSD-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhstock Traders Private Ltd. Acit (Osd)-2(3) 63, Bombay Samachar Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400020. Vs. Pan: Aaacs7235A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Nishant Somaiya (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

depreciation. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 17.12.2009. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order treated the interest income of Rs. 96,90,280/- as “Income From Other Sources” instead of Income from ‘Profit & Gains of Business and Profession’, disallowed professional fees

FIROZ TIN FACTORY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

section 32(1) of the Act, the AO held that the assessee shall be deemed to have claimed depreciation on the factory building and hence the Kalina Property becomes a depreciable asset. Accordingly he held that the provisions of sec. 50 shall be applicable. In this regard, the AO took the support of the statement given by the partner during

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. FIROZ TIN FACTORY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

section 32(1) of the Act, the AO held that the assessee shall be deemed to have claimed depreciation on the factory building and hence the Kalina Property becomes a depreciable asset. Accordingly he held that the provisions of sec. 50 shall be applicable. In this regard, the AO took the support of the statement given by the partner during

BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPMENT CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbalaji Infrastructure & Development Company Limited, 6Th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A. K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaacb8155C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-2(1) (1), R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

depreciation allowable under section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the reasons for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of the income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 3 Balaji Infrastructure & Development Company Limited 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

194I on the payments made to slum dwellers towards alternate accommodation. The CIT(A) in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 3429/M/2024 dated 19.09.2024). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO under 36(1)(va) by placing reliance

DCIT 1(2)(2), THANE vs. M.K. RETAIL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), M/S M.C. Retail Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Office No. 1, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dhan Cotage, 80, Mumbai – 400020 Vs. Bulls Royce Colony Road, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz, Mumbai Pan: Aaecm7597B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), M/S M.K. Retail Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Metro Dome, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Metro Theatre, M.G. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaecm7601C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Ritesh Singh (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2018

depreciation of Rs. 1,18,958/- and (4) the assessee had debited rent of Rs. 1,24,60,804/- paid to M/s Tag Enterprises. It was noticed that the rent agreement has been entered between M/s Tag Enterprises and M/s Brand Marketing and no explanation and details were brought on record during assessment proceedings, the assessment was reopened

DCIT 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M.C. RETAIL P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), M/S M.C. Retail Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Office No. 1, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dhan Cotage, 80, Mumbai – 400020 Vs. Bulls Royce Colony Road, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz, Mumbai Pan: Aaecm7597B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), M/S M.K. Retail Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Metro Dome, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Metro Theatre, M.G. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaecm7601C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Ritesh Singh (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2018

depreciation of Rs. 1,18,958/- and (4) the assessee had debited rent of Rs. 1,24,60,804/- paid to M/s Tag Enterprises. It was noticed that the rent agreement has been entered between M/s Tag Enterprises and M/s Brand Marketing and no explanation and details were brought on record during assessment proceedings, the assessment was reopened

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

depreciation of or loss on the realization of investment. The argument on behalf of the assessee primarily is that when the rules for preparation of the final accounts provide that the profit on sale of investments should be shown in the credit side of the Profit and Loss Account, then there was no question of rule 5(b) being applicable