DCIT -4(1), MUMBAI vs. FOUR DIMENSION SECURITIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

section 94(7) of the Act and with respect to penalty imposed on addition made for legal and professional fee, the issue was restored back by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the nature of expenditure, thus, the penalty so imposed was set aside to the file of Assessing Officer

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

section 94(7) of the Act and with respect to penalty imposed on addition made for legal and professional fee, the issue was restored back by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the nature of expenditure, thus, the penalty so imposed was set aside to the file of Assessing Officer

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

7 (reproduced above) may be seen merely as a quantification of the liability of the assessee in terms of the percentage of interest payable by the State Bank of India. Since there is neither any borrowing of money nor incurring of debt on the part of the assessee, in the present factual scenario, interest as defined under section

M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (EARLIER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8,KOLKATTA), MUMBAI

Section 94(7) is not attracted due to adequate holding period. Accordingly, this ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 61. In the result, ground No.13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 62. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 14 with respect to the expenditure incurred on maintenance and depreciation

DCIT, CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, there is no substance raised by the department and the same is dismissed

Section 94(7) is not attracted due to adequate holding period. Accordingly, this ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 61. In the result, ground No.13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 62. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 14 with respect to the expenditure incurred on maintenance and depreciation

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

94,411/- u/s.37(1) and alternatively also stated that the same would be liable for disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. 3.2. The ld. CIT(A) considering the fact that there was an amendment in Section 2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 w.e.f. 26/12/2014 held that the assessee shall be allowed deduction on payments made prior to 26/12/2014

CASCADE HOLDINGS PVT. LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93 M/S. Cascade Holdings Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 4(3), 32, Madhuli, Vs. Air India Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, 19Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5768N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. & Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R.

section of 94(1) & (4) of the Act, the loss claimed by the assessee is to be disallowed. We have gone through the provision of section and the same reads as under:- 94. Avoidance of tax by certain transactions in securities,- (1) Where the owner of any securities (in this sub- section and in subsection (2) referred

M/S. GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSETS MANAGEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

7] vii. Ledger account of HSM in the books of various family members for A.Y. 1991-92 reflecting in the aforesaid transactions carried out by HSM for them [Page 1662-1724 of PB No. 7] 56. The ld AR submits that the aforesaid evidences clearly establish that the transactions reflected in the seized page pertaining to the portfolio valuation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S.GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

7] vii. Ledger account of HSM in the books of various family members for A.Y. 1991-92 reflecting in the aforesaid transactions carried out by HSM for them [Page 1662-1724 of PB No. 7] 56. The ld AR submits that the aforesaid evidences clearly establish that the transactions reflected in the seized page pertaining to the portfolio valuation

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) determining total income at short ‘the Act’) determining total income at Rs.26,95,94,880/-. 5. Aggrieved by the additions made Aggrieved by the additions made to returned loss to returned loss , the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) however could

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) determining total income at short ‘the Act’) determining total income at Rs.26,95,94,880/-. 5. Aggrieved by the additions made Aggrieved by the additions made to returned loss to returned loss , the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) however could

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) determining total income at short ‘the Act’) determining total income at Rs.26,95,94,880/-. 5. Aggrieved by the additions made Aggrieved by the additions made to returned loss to returned loss , the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) however could

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) determining total income at short ‘the Act’) determining total income at Rs.26,95,94,880/-. 5. Aggrieved by the additions made Aggrieved by the additions made to returned loss to returned loss , the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) however could

DCIT, CIR-8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciation under section 32 of the Act 22,55,20,305 5. Assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who granted relief on certain issues against which revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. On the first issue in ground (a) relating to disallowance of provisions for claim Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) and claim Incurred

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciation under section 32 of the Act 22,55,20,305 5. Assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who granted relief on certain issues against which revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. On the first issue in ground (a) relating to disallowance of provisions for claim Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) and claim Incurred

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

depreciation under section 32 of the Act 22,55,20,305 5. Assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who granted relief on certain issues against which revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. On the first issue in ground (a) relating to disallowance of provisions for claim Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) and claim Incurred

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

depreciation under section 32 of the Act 22,55,20,305 5. Assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who granted relief on certain issues against which revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. On the first issue in ground (a) relating to disallowance of provisions for claim Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) and claim Incurred

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

7. In view of the facts of the case and catena of decision of various coordinate benches of ITAT discussed in the preceding paras and respectfully following the same, we are of the considered view the orders of the lower authorities cannot be sustained.Accordingly,the impugned P a g e | 10 A.Y. 2020-21 Jewelex India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai appellate

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Idea Cellular Limited Principal Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Income Tax-14, Century Mills Compound, 469, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacb2100P

depreciation of Rs. 1,27,32,60,976/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 7,94,64,25,489/-income under section