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

Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act in the present case “would lead to allowing claim of double deduction on the same asset”. In my considered opinion, the misconception about the “same asset” leads to an anomalous interpretation. As my discussion in the earlier part of this order show, the subject matter of consideration, i.e. share

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.

31" July 2001, cannot be said to be vesting power of Assessing Officer with the Addl. CIT. Similar is the situation with notification doted 1st August 2001, issued by the CIT, Mumbai, as it is a notification issued under section 120(1) and 120(2) and not under sub-section (4)(b). The third notification dated 8th August

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

31-32 of CIT(A) order). Submission of the Appellant: 1. The Appellant submits that the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 has been concluded by the decision of the Tribunal from AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 (Pg. 194-219 of PB), for AY 2009-10 (Pg. 223-234 of PB) and High Court order

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

31-32 of CIT(A) order). Submission of the Appellant: 1. The Appellant submits that the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 has been concluded by the decision of the Tribunal from AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 (Pg. 194-219 of PB), for AY 2009-10 (Pg. 223-234 of PB) and High Court order

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

31-32 of CIT(A) order). Submission of the Appellant: 1. The Appellant submits that the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 has been concluded by the decision of the Tribunal from AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 (Pg. 194-219 of PB), for AY 2009-10 (Pg. 223-234 of PB) and High Court order

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

31-32 of CIT(A) order). Submission of the Appellant: 1. The Appellant submits that the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 has been concluded by the decision of the Tribunal from AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 (Pg. 194-219 of PB), for AY 2009-10 (Pg. 223-234 of PB) and High Court order

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

31-32 of CIT(A) order). Submission of the Appellant: 1. The Appellant submits that the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 has been concluded by the decision of the Tribunal from AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 (Pg. 194-219 of PB), for AY 2009-10 (Pg. 223-234 of PB) and High Court order

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

depreciation and reserves etc. Is to be applied for amenities to the passenger, welfare of labour employed, financing the expansion programme etc., as approved by the Government and remainder, if any, is to be handed over to the State Government for the purpose of development. It is noted that there is no change in the activity of the assessee since

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 and reserves etc. Is to be applied for amenities to the passenger, welfare of labour employed, financing the expansion programme etc., as approved by the Government and remainder, if any, is to be handed over to the State Government for the purpose of development. It is noted that there is no change in the activity of the assessee since

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

depreciation and reserves etc. Is to be applied for amenities to the passenger, welfare of labour employed, financing the expansion programme etc., as approved by the Government and remainder, if any, is to be handed over to the State Government for the purpose of development. It is noted that there is no change in the activity of the assessee since

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

depreciation and reserves etc. Is to be applied for amenities to the passenger, welfare of labour employed, financing the expansion programme etc., as approved by the Government and remainder, if any, is to be handed over to the State Government for the purpose of development. It is noted that there is no change in the activity of the assessee since

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

2) of section 50 has limited application only in the context of mode of computation of capital gains contention of sections 48 and 49 of the Act and beyond that nothing should be imported to other sections of the Act. 33. Though most of the decisions have been rendered in the context of Section 54E but the principle laid down

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

depreciation, when the Delhi High Court in the case of Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs CIT 76 DTR (Ker) 372 case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs CIT 76 DTR (Ker) 372 case

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.

2) of section 50 has limited application only in the context of mode of computation of capital gains contention of sections 48 and 49 of the Act and beyond that nothing should be imported to other sections of the Act. 33. Though most of the decisions have been rendered in the context of Section 54E but the principle laid down

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

2(9) of the Insurance Act is irrelevant for the purpose of Section 101A read with IRDA regulations. Hence, the observation made by the ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.5, in our considered opinion, is wrong. 3.17. Let us now examine the applicability of provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of reinsurance premium paid

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

depreciation under section 32(2) is to be set off. As deduction under section 10A has to be excluded from the total income of the assessee the question of unabsorbed business loss being set off against such profit and gains of the undertaking would not arise. In that view of the matter, the approach of the assessing authority was quite

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

2) of section 50\nhas limited application only in the context of mode of computation of capital gains\ncontention of sections 48 and 49 of the Act and beyond that nothing should be\nimported to other sections of the Act.\n-. \n33. Though most of the decisions have been rendered in the context of Section 54E\nbut the principle laid

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

31-12-2010. He also stated that the amount of Rs. 11,299/- is still outstanding. Learned Counsel before us stated that these details are available in assessee’s paper book at pages 52, 201 and 202. It was claimed that this amount of Rs.4,20,635/- has been offered for taxation in the return of income for Page 2