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 even though assessee has claimed depreciation on the cost of membership card in the earlier years. 2 Techno Shares&Stocks Ltd. 35

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)

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub A-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction ; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or subsection (1) or sub-section

MARKSANS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In its return of income, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act of Rs 40,27,49,180 being 200% of revenue expenditure incurred on scientific research amounting to Rs. 19,75,62,590 and 200% of capital

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.

35 appointed to be an Additional Commissioner of Ihcome Tax Under subsection (1) of section 117." Thus, combined r eading of all the above sections makes it clear that prior to amendment m ode by Finance Act, 2007, the legislature treated 'Additional Commissioner' and 'Joint Commissioner' differently for the purposes of performing the role as an Assessing Officer, despite

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

2,\n6A, Shanti Nagar\nWorld Trade Centre 1\nVakola Pipeline Lane\nCuffee Parade\nSantacruz (East)\nMumbai-400\n005 Maharashtra\nS.O. Mumbai-400 055\nMaharashtra\n(Appellant)\nPAN/GIR No.AAACA3622K\n(Respondent)\n2\nITA No.2700/Mum/2023 and others\nM/s. Asian Paints\nAssessee by\nShri Madhur Agrawal &\nShri Ronak Doshi\nRevenue by\nShri Ajay Chandra\nDate of Hearing\n21/05/2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n26/07/2024\nआदेश

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section

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

35 SOT 15). (c) Chandigarh Bench in the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.06.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt. DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (f) ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development Corporation

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

35 SOT 15). (c) Chandigarh Bench in the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.06.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt. DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (f) ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development Corporation

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

35 SOT 15). (c) Chandigarh Bench in the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.06.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt. DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (f) ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development Corporation

ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MOBIAPPS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(2)(4), M/S Mobiapps India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.542, 5Th Floor, 7/10, Borawala Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaccm3613L

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section

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

35 SOT 15). (c) Chandigarh Bench in the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.0o6.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt, DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (fi ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development Corporation

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