TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

22. The learned Representative made an alternate plea to the effect that if one was to take the view that the provision of Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act is not applicable and also the view that provision of Section 50 is not applicable, then it would lead to a situation where cost of the asset is not determinable

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 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

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. (2) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing commission expenses amounting to Rs.3.43,69,243/- as the necessary documents to prove that the transaction was not genuine and undertaken in normal course of business were not submitted by assessee during assessment proceedings. (3) The appellant craves

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. (2) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing commission expenses amounting to Rs.3.43,69,243/- as the necessary documents to prove that the transaction was not genuine and undertaken in normal course of business were not submitted by assessee during assessment proceedings. (3) The appellant craves

ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated

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

depreciation. It has also been held by the Tribunal that the assessee has been established to promote rapid and orderly development of industries in the State and to assist in implementation of the policy of the Government within the purview of the KIAD Act, to facilitate in establishing infrastructure projects and to function on 'No Profit- No Loss' basis

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

depreciation. It has also been held by the Tribunal that the assessee has been established to promote rapid and orderly development of industries in the State and to assist in implementation of the policy of the Government within the purview of the KIAD Act, to facilitate in establishing infrastructure projects and to function on 'No Profit- No Loss' basis

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

depreciation. It has also been held by the Tribunal that the assessee has been established to promote rapid and orderly development of industries in the State and to assist in implementation of the policy of the Government within the purview of the KIAD Act, to facilitate in establishing infrastructure projects and to function on 'No Profit- No Loss' basis

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

depreciation. It has also been held by the Tribunal that the assessee has been established to promote rapid and orderly development of industries in the State and to assist in implementation of the policy of the Government within the purview of the KIAD Act, to facilitate in establishing infrastructure projects and to function on 'No Profit- No Loss' basis

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

depreciation. It has also been held by the Tribunal that the assessee has been established to promote rapid and orderly development of industries in the State and to assist in implementation of the policy of the Government within the purview of the KIAD Act, to facilitate in establishing infrastructure projects and to function on 'No Profit- No Loss' basis

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

22 of 38 within the meaning of section 2(15), would be well advised to eschew any activity which is in the nature of trade, commerce or business or the rendering of any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 8. What thus emerges from the statutory provisions, as explained in the would be excluded from the term

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

22. Section 2(42B) of the Act defines short term capital gains, "a short term capital gains means capital gains arising from transfer of a short term capital asset". Though the gain on transfer of a depreciable

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

22,82,23,850 to tax. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Learned CIT(A), in a detailed order, reversed the action of the Assessing Officer and observed as follows: 10. Having considered the assessment order of the AO, written submissions and case laws submitted by the assessee, I find that the Hon'ble Mumbai

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

22 of 37 12. All these were the objects of the general public utility and would squarely fall under section 2 (15) of the Act. Profit making was neither the aim nor object of the Trust. It was not the principal activity. Merely because while carrying out the activities for the purpose of achieving the objects of the Trust, certain

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

depreciation exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Balkhi and Bros, (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. INFOMEDIA 18 LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi, (Jm) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4069/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Range 6(1), Vs. Ruby House, A –Wing, Mumbai. J K Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4846/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Tax , Circle 6(1), Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Vs. Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Ruby House, A –Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, J K Sawant Marg, M K Road, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

depreciation thereon. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same with the observation that the assessee has not produced relevant bills and invoices before the AO as well as before him. However, we notice that the said observation is contradictory to the observations made by the AO, wherein he observes that he has perused the bills and details submitted. However

INFOMEDIA PRESS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN INFOMEDIA 18 LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi, (Jm) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4069/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Range 6(1), Vs. Ruby House, A –Wing, Mumbai. J K Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4846/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Tax , Circle 6(1), Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Vs. Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Ruby House, A –Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, J K Sawant Marg, M K Road, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

depreciation thereon. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same with the observation that the assessee has not produced relevant bills and invoices before the AO as well as before him. However, we notice that the said observation is contradictory to the observations made by the AO, wherein he observes that he has perused the bills and details submitted. However

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

22. Section 2(42B) of the Act defines short term capital gains, “a short term capital gains means capital gains arising from transfer of a short term capital asset”. Though the gain on transfer of a depreciable