CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

depreciation on a certain class of asset, or a class of cases, to use the language of section 10(2)(vi), cannot be accepted as a rule made for carrying out the purposes of the Act; indeed, such a rule may be regarded as patently violative of the purposes of the Act, i.e., of section 10(2).” 19. Shri Pardiwala

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

depreciation on a certain class of asset, or a class of cases, to use the language of section 10(2)(vi), cannot be accepted as a rule made for carrying out the purposes of the Act; indeed, such a rule may be regarded as patently violative of the purposes of the Act, i.e., of section 10(2).” 19. Shri Pardiwala

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

253 (Bom) (which\nwas assessee's own case) and in paragraph number 30 held that\nthis decision in fact was relied upon to support the finding that\nprovisions of section 115JB applies to the banking companies\nlike the assessee, but took the view that the line of reasoning is\n‘per incurriam'.\n8. Since there were contradicting decisions of Tribunal

ACIT CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T CAPITAL CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, CO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Circle 2(2)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., Mumbai. L & T House, N.M. Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.38/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3787/M/2015 (Ay 2010-2011) M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), L & T House, N.M. Marg, Mumbai. Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, Dr

5) The CIT(A) ought to have held that the business of banking in India was set up on 8 November 1994, being the date of banking licence obtained from Reserve Bank of India. 6) Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to allow deduction for depreciation on fixed assets while computing

DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDILA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1491/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 9(2)(2) Credila Financial Services R.No. 665A, 6 T H Floor, Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, B-301 Citi Point, V. Mumbai-400020 Next To Kohinoor Continental Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccc8789P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

5,32,99,080/- for A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y. 2010-11 even though there is a clear change in the shareholding pattern of the assessee company, thereby attracting by provisions of Section 79 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which prohibits the carry-forward and set-off of losses on account of changing shareholding pattern of a company". (ii) "Without

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

AMRATLAL ASHOK KUMAR & CO,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 18(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Amratlal Ashokkumar & Acit-Circle (18)1), 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, Co. 438, Gopal Galli, M.J. Market, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aabfa2727M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal & Neha Paranjpe - Advocates Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh;

253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29 [ld. CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 22.08.2016 in the matter of assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 26.02.2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

Section 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue has submitted an application dated 01-08-2018 praying for condoning delay in filing this appeal with tribunal late by 27 days beyond the time stipulated u/s. 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue has explained the delay in filing this appeal late with tribunal mainly due to interpretation

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

253 of the Act, against the order dated 25\nOctober 2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax on the following\ngrounds, which are independent of and without prejudice to each other.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO\n/ learned Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

253(5) of the Act is not automatic. What constitutes sufficient cause may vary from case–to–case and will depend upon the facts involved in a particular case. Therefore, no straight jacket formula can be applied for condonation of delay. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid legal position, we have to examine the facts of the present case and find

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THIRVANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

5 Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Company Ltd. ITA Nos.622, 636, 4346/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.25/Mum/2017 Pradesh Expressway Ltd. ((Supra)) for ready reference and analysis:- 1. This appeal by Revenue under section 253 of the Income-Tax Act (“The Act”) is directed against the order ld. CIT(A)-21, Mumbai dated 06.11.2014 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, the assessee has filed cross objection

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD,ORRISSA vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

5 Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Company Ltd. ITA Nos.622, 636, 4346/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.25/Mum/2017 Pradesh Expressway Ltd. ((Supra)) for ready reference and analysis:- 1. This appeal by Revenue under section 253 of the Income-Tax Act (“The Act”) is directed against the order ld. CIT(A)-21, Mumbai dated 06.11.2014 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, the assessee has filed cross objection

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

253 Loss reduced in A.Y.2011-12 and therefore offered for addition Withdrawal of depreciation on account (-) 7,86,27,128 Loss reduced of mistake in opening WOV and crediting the sale proceeds against the WOV of block of assets Profit on sale of fixed assets (+) 5,17,82,414 Loss increased Final impact (-) 2,68,44,714 Loss reduced

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') against the order passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ('AO') dated 18 June 2024 ('Final Assessment order") in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (DRP), Mumbai dated 3 May 2024 (DRP Directions") on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other