J.R.D. TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 2(4) (NOW ASSSESSED BY THE DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

disallowed exemption u/s 11 on dividend income of Its. 4,81,332/- and Rs. 13,05,04,610/-. The income of the assessee was charged at Maximum Marginal Rate u/s 164(2) of the Income Tax Act.” 17. I noted that this finding is factually incorrect. Tata Sons Ltd. has not made any contribution to the assessee, let alone contributing

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

253. The book profit was determined at ₹ 1,622,908,042/–. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 8. Assessee preferred an objection before the learned dispute resolution panel – 2, Mumbai – 2 (the learned DRP) who issued directions on 18/3/2021. The learned DRP: – i. On the issue of imputation of interest of ₹ 330,700,842/– on advances

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two appeals preferred by the Assessee against two separate orders pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020 passed by ITA No.3015 & 3075/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2019-2020 the first appellate authority. Since identical grounds were raised in all the three appeals, the same were heard together, and are, therefore, being disposed

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

253 of the Income-tax Act (‘the Act’) are directed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C passed in pursuance of direction of ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1 (ld. DRP), Mumbai for Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08. In both the appeals, the assessee has raised certain identical grounds of appeal, therefore, both the appeals were

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

d) Ground No. 4 to 4.5: Disallowance of INR 47,17,99,596/- in respect of discount extended to pre-paid distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (e) Ground No. 5 to 5.5: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act (f) Ground No. 6 to 6.3: Disallowance of deduction under Section

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

D E R Per Bench 1. This is a batch of 7 appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2014- 15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 which were heard together as the same involved common issues and are, therefore, being disposed by way of a common order. 1.1. Vide order dated 15/02/2021 appeals pertaining to Assessment Year

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Disallowance related to DSC: The then Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(2) had given direction u / s 144A vide order dated 13. 12.2016 to verify the derivative Sales Credit (DSC) claim of the assessee. He observed that no evidence or supporting documents has been produced by the assessee Bank before him to establish it's claim that

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

d made disallowance u/s 14A of contention of the assessee an contention of the assessee and made disallowance u the Act by applying Rule 8D. On appeal, the Ld On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) the Act by applying Rule 8D deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved by the deleted the disallowance made by the AO Aggrieved

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

253 to\n257/Mum/2021), the aforesaid order, dated 15/02/2021, was\nrecalled as the Assessee had failed to make payment of tax amount.\nIn the above background the appeals came up for hearing before\nus.\n2.\n Assessment Year 2014-15\n2.1. We would first take up three appeals pertaining to the Assessment\nYear 2014-15.\nITA No. 3195/Mum/2019 preferred

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. These are cross-appeals for Assessment Year 2006-2007 preferred against the order, dated 18/05/2009, passed by the Commissioner ITA No.3762 & 4385/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 2006-2007 of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Mumbai, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

D” BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.7447/MUM/2004\n Assessment Year: 1999-2000\n&\nITA Nos.286 & 287/MUM/2005\n Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2001-02\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\n(successor to Housing\nDevelopment Finance Corporation\nLtd.)\nHDFC Bank House,\nSenapati Bapat Marg, Delisle\nRoad, S.O Mumbai – 400013\n(PAN : AAACH2702H

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed. 4.14 Also in case of Span Foundation vs. ITO Delhi HC 178 Taxman 436 held that in case of alleged violation u/s. 13, benefit under section 11 would not be available only to this extent of application of income of property for the benefit of person referred to in section 13(3) 4.15 Conclusion In view of the above

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed. 4.14 Also in case of Span Foundation vs. ITO Delhi HC 178 Taxman 436 held that in case of alleged violation u/s. 13, benefit under section 11 would not be available only to this extent of application of income of property for the benefit of person referred to in section 13(3) 4.15 Conclusion In view of the above

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed. 4.14 Also in case of Span Foundation vs. ITO Delhi HC 178 Taxman 436 held that in case of alleged violation u/s. 13, benefit under section 11 would not be available only to this extent of application of income of property for the benefit of person referred to in section 13(3) 4.15 Conclusion In view of the above

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed. 4.14 Also in case of Span Foundation vs. ITO Delhi HC 178 Taxman 436 held that in case of alleged violation u/s. 13, benefit under section 11 would not be available only to this extent of application of income of property for the benefit of person referred to in section 13(3) 4.15 Conclusion In view of the above

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order