DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed the expenditure. It submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2008-09, on which reliance is placed by the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue against the assessee in the year under consideration has been reversed by this coordinate bench of ITAT- Mumbai in the assessee’s own case

M/S. LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE- 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2012-13

section 50B of the Act, disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses and disallowance of depreciation and related expenses on motor

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed\nthe expenditure. It submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2008-09, on\nwhich reliance is placed by the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue against the assessee\nin the year under consideration has been reversed by this coordinate bench of ITAT-\nMumbai in the assessee's own case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaishri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 50B of the IT Act, 1961 is a deeming provision. 7.7 Hence, the AO disallowed the transfer expenses of Rs. 27,07,99,999/- and added

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance as made u.s 14A of the Act. 8. The second issue raised by the assessee is against the upholding of order of AO by Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of transfer of Planet M. division in consideration of equity shares and 6% redeemable unsecured debentures being slump sale and therefore liable for tax under section 50B

ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance as made u.s 14A of the Act. 8. The second issue raised by the assessee is against the upholding of order of AO by Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of transfer of Planet M. division in consideration of equity shares and 6% redeemable unsecured debentures being slump sale and therefore liable for tax under section 50B

DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

50B of the Act. 6. The CIT’s direction regarding reduction under Section 10A of the Act are, in any event, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as they were never the subject of the CIT’s Section 263 notice and were never put to the Appellant”. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

disallowing the export markets development allowance as claimed by the assessee and directed that the claim made by it for such allowance be allowed in respect of all assessments made after 1/08/1981.He took note of the three contentions raised before the AO. Referring to the provisions of section 35B of the Act and rule 6AA,he observed that the provision

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 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. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

50B], section 80-1 A, section 80-1B, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, [section 115JB, [section 115JC] or section 115VW] or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] The appellant has contended that it had claimed

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of\nthe Act, and the same is deleted. As a result, Ground No. 1 raised in assessee's\nappeal is allowed.\n37.\nGround No. 2, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the applicability\nof the provisions of section 50B

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of\nthe Act, and the same is deleted. As a result, Ground No. 1 raised in assessee's\nappeal is allowed.\n37.\nGround No. 2, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the applicability\nof the provisions of section 50B

SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

50B, section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80JJAA, section 92F, section 115JB, section 115JC and section 115W of the Act are proposed to be amended accordingly. 7 AY 2022-23 Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. Further, the due date for filing return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 is proposed to be amended by:- (A) providing 31st

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 50B considering the legal framework as well as the basic principle that capital gain is always a portion of sale consideration, and, therefore, portion can never be higher than the whole. Further, I agree with the appellant that the sale consideration as agreed between parties is to be considered for computing capital gains. In light of the fact that

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 50B considering the legal framework as well as the basic principle that capital gain is always a portion of sale consideration, and, therefore, portion can never be higher than the whole. Further, I agree with the appellant that the sale consideration as agreed between parties is to be considered for computing capital gains. In light of the fact that

WOCKHARDT HOSPITALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7454/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Wockhardt Hospitals Limited Addl. Cit-10(1) Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Room No.454, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Complex, Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. M.K. Road,Mumbai-20. Pan:Aaacw 3342 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7021/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-10(1) Vs. M/S. Wockhardt Hospitals Limited Aayakar Bhavan,Mumbai. Mumbai-51. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Ms. Sunita Billa-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:Shri Niraj Sheth सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 25/09/2013 Of The Cit (A)-21,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year. Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Running Hospitals,Filed Its Return Of Income On 15/10/2010.A Revised Return Was Filed On 01/03/2012,Declaring Income At Rs. 8.19 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,On 28/03/2013, Determining Its Income At Rs.325.89 Crores.

disallowance,amounting to Rs.18.43 crores.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs.18,43,30,378/- under the head expenses incurred in connection with slump- sale.He held that section 50B

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)

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C ) are initiated on this issue. 8.6 Assessee filed objections before the DRP-1, Mumbai, disputing additions on the above issues. The DRP 1, Mumbai, vide order dated 6'" September 2017, passed under section 144C

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SODEXO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

50B(3) read with Explanation -2 below that section, which has been worked out by the assessee at Rs.1,50,04,578/-. The Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue relates to the disallowance

AADIVASI WELFARE FOUNDATION,JHARKHAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

disallowance of Income is called for on the ground that the form for accumulation has been filed belatedly. 2. The Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee is a Resident Non-Profit Foundation which has been recognized as an institution exclusively existing for the purpose of Nature Conservation in Tribal Dominated regions of India under section