ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

47) of the Act read with section 53A of Act read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act of Property Act, the capital gain arises in the capital gain arises in AY 2009-10. He also rejected the He also rejected the computation of LTCG computation of LTCG i.e. the sale consideration and cost of i.e. the sale consideration

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

2) clearly delineates two distinct the statutory scheme. Rule 8D(2) clearly delineates two distinct the statutory scheme. Rule 8D(2) clearly delineates two distinct categories of expenditure: categories of expenditure: (i) direct expenditure direct expenditure, including direct interest expenditure, , including direct interest expenditure, incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income, which must be for the purpose of earning

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on its business within the four corners of the law. That, mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of this Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd.’s case (supra

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowance of direct expenses as provided under Rule 8D(2)(i) and the interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The dispute is with regard to administrative expenses only as prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii). We have noted that the assessee has claimed investment in its group companies for strategic purpose on which no other expenses or administrative expenses

CARESTREAM HEALTH INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Carestream Health Inc Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Carestream Health Income Tax, Range-2(1)(1) India Private Limited Scindia House, M.M.Road Sunteck Centre Ballard Pier 1St Floor, Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 028 Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aaecc6050H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowed by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) on the ground that reduction of capital does not amount to "transfer" as well the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act, relying on the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Bennett Coleman (supra). The assessee filed an appeal with the Bangalore Tribunal against

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 State Bank Of India Principal Commissioner Of Financial Reporting & Vs. Income Tax-2, Mumbai. Taxation Department, 3Rd Floor , Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan No. Aaacs8577K Appellant Respondent

47,694/- minus Rs.706,29,84,022/- ] fulfils the conditions in the first proviso below section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2)(v) of the Act and hence, should qualify for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representatives (DRs) submit that deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) is not absolute

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance under

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance under

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance under

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

47,00,310/-, The AO also disallowed a further notional amount of Rs. 12,01,70,250/- as indirect administrative expenditure under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D, being the amount computed @0.5% of the average value of investments held by the assessee. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A computed by the ld. AO was Rs.47

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

47,00,310/-, The AO also disallowed a further notional amount of Rs. 12,01,70,250/- as indirect administrative expenditure under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D, being the amount computed @0.5% of the average value of investments held by the assessee. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A computed by the ld. AO was Rs.47

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

47(ii) was subsequently omitted by the Finance Act of 1987 with effect from 1-4-1988. Simultaneously, sub-section (4) of section 45 came to be inserted by the same Finance Act. Sub-section (4) of section 45 provides that profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

47(ii) was subsequently omitted by the Finance Act of 1987 with effect from 1-4-1988. Simultaneously, sub-section (4) of section 45 came to be inserted by the same Finance Act. Sub-section (4) of section 45 provides that profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets

VIJAY ALLOYS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalvijay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 12, Happy Home, 244, Waterfield Road ……………. Appellant Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan – Aaacv2951J

section 2(47)(v) has taken place on execution of the registered development agreement on 20th April 2006. Notably, even till date, the assessee on his own has not offered any capital gain to show its bonafide. As regards the decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative on a careful reading of the same, we found them

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 45 read with section 47(iv) of the Act on slump sale of business of Rs. 742,82,74,000 32. The learned AO after perusing the computation of total income along-with the MAT computation and the letter dated 1 December 2015 (Refer page 51 to 55 of Paperbook) which was on record

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

v) of the Act, then, benefit should be given to the assessee under the residuary clause i.e. section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. Moreover, Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26.11.2008, relied upon by the CIT DR is also not applicable to the facts of the case. As regards, para ix of the aforesaid instruction, it is applicable to deduction towards

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

47, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment years 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12. 2. Since all these appeals and cross objections pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals and cross objections were heard

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

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both