DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA COPR PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

144A of the IT Act to the extent of exempt income received by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 of CBDT.” 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance

K. RAHEJA CORPORATE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

144A of the IT Act to the extent of exempt income received by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 of CBDT.” 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance

DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING FREIGHT SHARED SERVICES (INDIA) LLP ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (PCIT)-41, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Dhl Global Forwarding V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (Pcit) – 41, Room (India) Llp No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5Th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Lbs Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfd3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

disallowance. 6.4 It is further submitted that during the 263 proceedings, the assessee made a detailed submission (Page 97 of Paper book). However, the ld. PCIT failed to appreciate the submissions and directed the AO to conduct a fresh verification and pass a revised order. He failed to form an opinion as to whether there was any error

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KKR CAPITAL MARKETS INDIA LIMITED)., MUMBAI

disallowance can be made even\nif there is no exempt income.\n8.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held\nthat “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a\nnon-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KKR CAPITAL MARKETS INDIA LIMITED)., MUMBAI

disallowance can be made even\nif there is no exempt income.\n8.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held\nthat “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a\nnon-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowance can be made even\nif there is no exempt income.\n8.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held\nthat “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a\nnon-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance can be made even\nif there is no exempt income.\n8.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held\nthat “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a\nnon-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance can be made even\nif there is no exempt income.\n8.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held\nthat “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a\nnon-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KKR CAPITAL MARKETS INDIA LIMITED)., MUMBAI

disallowance can be made even\nif there is no exempt income.\n8.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held\nthat “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a\nnon-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowance can be made even\nif there is no exempt income.\n8.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held\nthat “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a\nnon-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance can be made even\nif there is no exempt income.\n8.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held\nthat “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a\nnon-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

AJAY INDRAJIT THAKORE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144A of the Act by the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer not only held that the gain derived from transfer of tenancy right is subject to long term capital gain tax, but, he also held that the cost of acquisition of tenancy right is to be taken as nil. Accordingly, he brought the entire sale consideration

ASST CIT 27(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MERIT MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection stands

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit-27(2), M/S. Merit Magnum Construction Room No. 420, 4Th Floor, Samruddhi, Office Floor, Plot No. 157, 18Th Road, Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly. Station Vs. Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Nr. Ambedkar Garden, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aacfv 9391 F (Revenue) (Assessee) :

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Despite the above, the assessee- firm was served with notice under section 148 of the Act. c) The project under the said agreement is a Slum Rehabilitation Project (SRP) and it is only after the said project is completed will the assessee be entitled to exploit the balance land for construction of saleable

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.45,46,52,295/- is made and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Since the said issue has already been considered by DRP as well

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA, BKC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s 254 dated 30.12.2019 that the\nPage 2\nITA Nos. 3409 & 3412/Mum/2023\nACIT, Circle 2(1)(1) Vs. M/s Bank of Baroda\nexpenses disallowed by the Assessee as relatable to exempt income is\nnot found satisfactory.\n2.\nThe appellant craves to amend, alter and delete any of the aforesaid\ngrounds and add any additional grounds either before

INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

disallowance can be made even if there is no exempt income. 8.2. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held that “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a non-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INCRED HOLDINGS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KKR CAPITAL MARKETS INDIA LIMITED)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

disallowance can be made even if there is no exempt income. 8.2. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), has held that “Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a non-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from

PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

disallowance of miscellaneous expenses and thereafter in para-6, the income was computed. In the concluding para, direction has been issued for giving credit for pre-paid taxes and charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as applicable. We also note that vide letter dated 14/12/2009 addressed to the ACIT (pages 42 to 45 of the paper book) explanation

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

disallowance). Therefore, he set aside the order of the AO dated 21.03.2016 and directed the AO to make de-novo assessment after enquiries. 9. Assailing the action of the Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AR contended that the Ld. PCIT ought not to have invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against the assessment order dated 28.04.2016 because the subject