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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

220/- 24.44% of section 10 Interest income on unit scheme 1964 exempt 16,32,987/- 0.50% under sub-section (35) of section 10 Total 32,27,17,773/- 100% 3.14. Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Sec. 115JB(2), only the expenditure relating to income other than income assessable

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 Onc 15,684 1,442,928 1,442,928 785 11,326,985 2

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 Onc 15,684 1,442,928 1,442,928 785 11,326,985 2

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 Onc 15,684 1,442,928 1,442,928 785 11,326,985 2

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 Onc 15,684 1,442,928 1,442,928 785 11,326,985 2

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

220/-. The Assessing Officer called on the assessee to explain why the difference of Rs.3,14,24,979/- should not be added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that during the year, the assessee has started a joint research programme on Disruptive Innovation with CCI of USA. The purpose of the programme was to enable company

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

220/-. The Assessing Officer called on the assessee to explain why the difference of Rs.3,14,24,979/- should not be added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that during the year, the assessee has started a joint research programme on Disruptive Innovation with CCI of USA. The purpose of the programme was to enable company

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

220(2) of the Act for delayed payment of income tax is not allowable as it partakes the character of tax itself as held in Orissa Cement Ltd. v CIT (1993) 200 ITR 636(Del). Similarly it has been held that when tax is not an allowable expenditure , no expenditure in relation to the tax can be allowed as held

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

2 | As at \nMarch 31, 2004 | As at \nMarch 31, 2005 \nRupees | Rupees | Rupees \n---|---|---\nSPECIAL RESERVE No. I | 194,35,94,700 | 934,35,94,700\nLess: Transfer to Provision for Contingencies | 50,00,00,000 | 40,00,00,000 \nSPECIAL RESERVE No. II | 144,35,94,700 | 194,35,94,700 \nOpening Balance

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails