SHETH CREATORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENT. CIR-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

SHETH CREATORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH CREATORS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above

2) of section 145 of the Income-tax Act provides that the\nCentral Government may notify Income Computation and Disclosure\nStandards (ICDS) for any class of assessees or for any class of income. The\nCentral Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) notified ICDS-I to ICDS-X vide\nNotification No. S.O.892(E) dated 31 March, 2015 after wide public\nconsultations

DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SOLVAY SPECIALITIES INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

depreciation cost claimed by the assessee in accordance with Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the IT Rules, 1962. 8. The Ld AO / TPO / Ld DRP has erred in rejecting the plea of the assessee to compare the profitability of the assessee and comparables at EBDITA level. 9. The Ld AO / TPO / Ld DRP has erred in rejecting the economic

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

2(45) of the Act, "total income" means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Chapter IV of the Act deals with computation of total income. (ii) This chapter provides that all income shall be classified under appropriate heads of income. The income chargeable under a head

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

24-12-2009 & 12-12-2010 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The first issue in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of performance based incentive treating as bonus. For this assessee has raised

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

24-12-2009 & 12-12-2010 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The first issue in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of performance based incentive treating as bonus. For this assessee has raised

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

24-12-2009 & 12-12-2010 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The first issue in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of performance based incentive treating as bonus. For this assessee has raised

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

24-12-2009 & 12-12-2010 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The first issue in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of performance based incentive treating as bonus. For this assessee has raised

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 2(24) (xvi). However, what is brought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess of the fair market value of the shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed in capital not received from a non-resident i.e. premium allegedly not received on application of ALP. Therefore, absent express

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 2(24) (xvi). However, what is brought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess of the fair market value of the shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed in capital not received from a non-resident i.e. premium allegedly not received on application of ALP. Therefore, absent express

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 2(24) (xvi). However, what is brought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess of the fair market value of the shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed in capital not received from a non-resident i.e. premium allegedly not received on application of ALP. Therefore, absent express

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions would render

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

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

depreciation\npertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 for carry forward and set off in\nthe year under consideration. As a result, ground no.8.1, raised in assessee's\nappeal, is allowed for statistical purposes.\nITA No.2458/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n23\n24. Grounds no.8.2-8.4 were not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly,\nthe same are dismissed as not pressed.\n25. The issue

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

depreciation of assets provided for in 24 M/s. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Ltd. section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act w.e.f. 1993. The learned A.R. for the assessee contends that it is therefore apparent that the provisions of Wealth Tax Act are inapplicable to equity shares held by an assessee and consequently, the valuation rules therein are also inapplicable