UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

ii) in the case of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, a company\nformed and registered under any law for the time being in force in\nthat State;\niii) in the case of any of the Union territories of Dadra and Nagar\nHaveli, Goat, Daman and Diu, and Pondicherry, a company\nformed and registered under any law for the time

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

ii) in the case of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, a company\nformed and registered under any law for the time being in force in\nthat State;\niii) in the case of any of the Union territories of Dadra and Nagar\nHaveli, Goat, Daman and Diu, and Pondicherry, a company\nformed and registered under any law for the time

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

section 56 (2)(viib) should not be applied on the shares allotted during the year (ii) depreciation of intangible asset

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

section 56 (2)(viib) should not be applied on the shares allotted during the year (ii) depreciation of intangible asset

ITO -3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S V.K. LALACO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Income Tax Officer -3(3)(4) V. M/S. V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 672, 6Th Floor 1017/18, Dalamal Tower Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 10Th Floor, 211, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400020 Pan: Aaacv9820A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satish Modi Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

depreciation of ₹.8,49,236/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) were issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended and filed the relevant information as called for. 4. The assessee company is in the business

TATVA GLOABAL ENVIRONMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumartatva Global Environment Ltd Vs Ito-9(3)(3), (Now Known As Tatva Global Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Environment Pvt Ltd) Mumbai Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt Dcit, Cent.Cir.6(3), Vs Tatva Global Environment Ltd Mumbai (Now Known As Tatva Global Environment Pvt Ltd) Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt

section 56(2)(viia) as per rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules in respect of investment in shares of Enviro Technology Limited. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Tribunal to decide

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

II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent of the State Government while acting as “Special Planning Authority” as appointed by the State Government under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 2. The Appellant prays that on facts

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

II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent of the State Government while acting as “Special Planning Authority” as appointed by the State Government under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 2. The Appellant prays that on facts

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

II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent of the State Government while acting as “Special Planning Authority” as appointed by the State Government under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 2. The Appellant prays that on facts

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

II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent of the State Government while acting as “Special Planning Authority” as appointed by the State Government under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 2. The Appellant prays that on facts

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

II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent of the State Government while acting as “Special Planning Authority” as appointed by the State Government under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 2. The Appellant prays that on facts

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

56,708/- being expenses incurred on flats/buildings sold in earlier AY. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and deleted the disallowance of expenses. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Disallowance under section

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

depreciation exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Balkhi and Bros, (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used

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

depreciation exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Balkhi and Bros, (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used

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

depreciation exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Balkhi and Bros, (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used

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 exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Balkhi and Bros, (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

ii) the amount set apart for payment of dividends on pref erence shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than those set apart towards depreciation