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

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Innovative Construction Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 12(2)(2) 1St Floor, Samir Complex Room No. 145, 1St Floor St. Andrews Road, Bandra (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400050 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaaci1573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh A. Thar Department By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D could not be applied retrospectively. 10. In the case of Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd., v. CIT [419 ITR 322] the Hon'ble Kerala High Court considered a situation where the assessee had set off the deemed income i.e. unexplained cash credits addition made u/s. 68 of the Act against carryforward losses being unabsorbed

VINOD CHANDRU SHAHANI PROPRIETOR OF MAGCO CRANES,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vinod Chandru Shahani Proprietor Of Ito,Ward-23(3)(1), Mumbai Magco Cranes Vs Range 169, Piramal Chamber, I.T. Peace Heaven A-34, Opp. Holy Officer, Lalbaug, Mumbai, Family Hospital, St. Andrews Road, Maharashtra – 400012. Greater Mumbai, Bandra West S.O. Maharashtra – 400050. [Pan No. Awyps0752P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Depreciation Rs. 4,85,672/- Total Fund from profit Rs. 17,44,461.55/- during the financial year assessee taken loan from friends and family by cross cheque enclosed herewith ledger copy. These are sufficient fund with applicant during the year. Enclosed Ledger Copies. (Annexure “C” Enclosed) Details of Loan Taken : i. AmritlalDevichand Jain Rs. 20,00,000/-. ii. Advance from

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

VIJAY M. HARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vijay M. Haria Income Tax Officer-13(3)(21) 502, Sharda Chambers No.2 Room No. 428, 4Th Floor Vs. Bhat Bazar, Masjid Bunder Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400003 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabph1129C Appellant Respondent

69D of I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, assessee’s claim for setting off of loss of Rs.9,66,297 /- against the income of Rs.35,93,000/- under section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961 which is erroneously mentioned as section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not allowable and the 10 Shri Vijay M. Haria same is rejected. In this connection, reliance

TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

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

69D. Again this goes to show that there is a specific bar or restriction for allowing of any set off of any loss from any part of stream of income. This bar and restriction is completely absent in sub section (2) of section 115BBD. If we take this analogy of section 115BBDA and Section 115BBE, then it indicates that, whenever

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

69D. c) The section 115BBE is actually a clarificatory section and law was already 1 accordingly propounded by High Courts. d) Thus A.O. has correctly applied the provisions of law and thus rightly rejected the request of assessee. 5.2.2 In view of the above facts, it is held that the AO is right and there is no anomaly

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

depreciation allowance the amount of the allowance to the extent to which it is not absorbed can be set off against profits chargeable under any other head for that assessment year. (emphasis supplied by us) (xi) The ld AR argued that the set-off of loss is not a choice given to an assessee. It is a statutory provision which