ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. 'A' STAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Depreciation as per chart 315127 3210878 u/s.32 65918392 Income from other sources Fixed deposit interest 2895751 Gross Total Income 68814143 Total income (rounded off 68814140 u/s.288A) 4.3. The AO observed that though the appellant had declared undisclosed income of Rs.13,47,63,640/- in the form of stock of polished diamonds under the head profit and gains of the business

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN STAR DIAMONDS ITERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Depreciation as per chart 315127 3210878 u/s.32 65918392 Income from other sources Fixed deposit interest 2895751 Gross Total Income 68814143 Total income (rounded off 68814140 u/s.288A) 4.3. The AO observed that though the appellant had declared undisclosed income of Rs.13,47,63,640/- in the form of stock of polished diamonds under the head profit and gains of the business

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Depreciation-Rs. 1,316.80 crores and unabsorbed Business Loss - Rs. 799.37 crores 7.8. It is submitted that even 'Long term Capital Gains' is taxable at the rate of 20% or 10%, as the case may be, whereas business income is taxable at marginal rate of 30%, however, still set-off of such loss is permissible as per the provisions

M/S. KLAUS WAREN FIXTURES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation of earlier years as accepted by the Revenue amounts to denying the legitimate adjustment in the computation of Book profit u/s 115JB, hence, the Order u/s. 154 is bad in law and the benefit of adjustment may be granted. ii) Without prejudice to above, the amended provision of Sec. 115BBE(2) applicable w.e.f AY 2017-18 is prospective

M/S KVR INFRA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 30 (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 323/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2011-12) M/S Kvr Infra G-2, Room No.4, Shri Rani Sati Nagar Chsl, S.V. Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064. Pan: Aakfk3458Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-30 (2), Mumbai. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None (Written Submission Dt. 19.07.2023) "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.12.2022, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In Appeal Is Against Addition Of Rs. 50,24,875/- Made Under Section 69B Of The Income Tax Act, 1963 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’)

depreciation on Crane at higher value as per agreement. Therefore, we see no merit in the addition made under section 69B

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, , MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

depreciation - Rs. 1,360.51 crores and Unabsorbed Business Loss - Rs. 2,113.98 crores 4.7. It is submitted that even 'Long term Capital Gains' is taxable at the rate of 20% or 10%, as the case may be, whereas business income is taxable at marginal rate of 30%, however, still set-off of such loss is permissible as per the provisions

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32;] 87[(b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each of the previous years falling within the block period shall be the income determined before allowing deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called 88[to any partner not being a working partner] : Provided that

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32;] 87[(b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each of the previous years falling within the block period shall be the income determined before allowing deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called 88[to any partner not being a working partner] : Provided that

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32;] 87[(b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each of the previous years falling within the block period shall be the income determined before allowing deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called 88[to any partner not being a working partner] : Provided that

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32;] 87[(b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each of the previous years falling within the block period shall be the income determined before allowing deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called 88[to any partner not being a working partner] : Provided that

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

69B is not attracted. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and AO is directed to delete the addition. The ground No.1 is allowed. 9. The Ld. A.R. did not press ground No.2 and the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 10. The various grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: “1.Whether on the facts

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

69B is not attracted. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and AO is directed to delete the addition. The ground No.1 is allowed. 9. The Ld. A.R. did not press ground No.2 and the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 10. The various grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: “1.Whether on the facts