DDIT (IT)-4(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LINKLATERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 91(7) of the Income-tax Act is applicable in this case. Further, in reference to Article 5(1) and 5(2) he relied on the decision of the ITAT, in assessee’s own case, wherein the Hon’ble bench has considered the elaborate submissions from the assessee and decided the issues in favor of the revenue. 11. With

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 ()

5. Without prejudice to the Grounds No 1,2 and 3 on the facts and in the Without prejudice to the Grounds No 1,2 and 3 on the facts and in the Without prejudice to the Grounds No 1,2 and 3 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

5(2) and section 14 of the Act and thereby importing its meaning into section 54 read with section 45 of the Act. In fact, the words 'in India' are already present in section 54 of the Act when applying it in the case of a non-resident and thus, the new residential house has to be purchased or constructed

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

5 9 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 part of employee cost. The same was claimed in A.Y. 2011-12 and was therefore disallowed in A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. AT submits that the ld.CIT in his notice in para 12 (page 120 of the Paperbook) further observes that Assessing Officer accepted the income shown in the revised computation

JAI JALARAM CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jai Jalaram Co-Operative Credit The Ito Ward 29(1)(5), Society Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Shop No. -2 Ground Floor, Shop Complex, No. -2 Ground Floor, Mulund Mumbai-400051. Siddhivinayak C.H.S. Near Punjab National Bank Zaver Road, Mulund West, Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aaaaj 2603 B Appellant Respondent

disallowing the deduction of Rs 2,86,069/- claimed u/s 80P of the Act. claimed u/s 80P of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is 'Dismissed.” 'Dismissed.” 4. We have carefully perused the orders passed by the lower We have carefully perused the orders passed by the lower We have carefully perused the orders passed by the lower authorities, material

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned PCIT erred in disallowing the deduction of donation paid and claimed in PCIT erred in disallowing the deduction of donation paid and PCIT erred in disallowing the deduction of donation paid and accordance with the provisions of section 80G of Income tax Act of accordance with

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

section 11(5)investment in shares is not a specified mode. Consequently, the dividend received there from such shares could not be therefore qualify dividend received there from such shares could not be therefore qualify dividend received there from such shares could not be therefore qualify to be an investment in specified modes us 11(5

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section. Further what is required to be 6 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 disallowed

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section. Further what is required to be 6 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 disallowed

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section. Further what is required to be 6 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 disallowed

RUSTOMJEE ASPIREE PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 26(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rustomjee Aspiree Premises Co- Ito Ward 26(2)(5), Op. Soc. Ltd., Room No. 319, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Vs. Ground Floor, Rustomjee Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, ‘G’ Block Aspiree, Cts No. 628, Ai, Pt Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Kurla, Eatern Express Highway, (East), Mumbai-400051. Sion, Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabar 4001 L Appellant Respondent

disallowed deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act and in the deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act a deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act a light of the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the same light of the decision of the Supreme Court

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

5. failed to appreciate that in the absence of accumulated profits with BTPL, preference share application money received from BTPL can't be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of the Appellant; 6. failed to appreciate that granting of loans and advances is substantial part of business activity of BTPL, CISL and Merind Limited and hence, provisions of section

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

2), specific modes of investment/ deposits under section 11(5) and other related provisions of Section 13”. Satisfied with the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no issues with respect to section 11 and 15, and he noted that the income derived from property held under trust, which included these investments, is covered by the exemption under

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

2), specific modes of investment/ deposits under section 11(5) and other related provisions of Section 13”. Satisfied with the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no issues with respect to section 11 and 15, and he noted that the income derived from property held under trust, which included these investments, is covered by the exemption under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

2,33,69,884 out of total expenditure of Rs.2,93,69,884/ total expenditure of Rs.2,93,69,884/- was disallowed was disallowed. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that

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

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

Section 14A of the Act was computed at Rs. 1,14,95,165/-. 5. However, the ld. AO did not accept the assessee's computation of disallowance and proceeded to recomputed the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D. First of all, he accepted the amount liable for disallowance under clause 2

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

2) and (3) of section14A cannot be imported to clause (f) to the Explanation to section 115JB and no adjustment can be made to the Book profit in respect of disallowance under section 14A computed by invoking Rule8D. 5

DCIT CIR 28(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASHTAVINAYAKA CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

2 0 1 5 source of which is doubtful. Here, the incurrence of the expenditure in the form of purchases itself is doubtful and therefore provisions of section 69C are not applicable. Hence, I direct the AO to disallow