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

56(1) or deemed dividend under section 2(22)(a) of the Act will amount to double taxation since the same amount has held to be taxable in the hands of the shareholders of DHPL as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(a) of the Act in respect of indirect disguised distribution of accumulated profits by the donor companies

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act are applicable to the gifts received by a company or firm even then the said provisions are not applicable to the assessee as it is a company in the public are substantially interested and this class of companies haves been specifically excluded from the application of clause 56(2

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 ()

56,517/-. Against this income, . Against this income, the Assessee has suo the Assessee has suo-motto disallowed expenditure of Rs. motto disallowed expenditure of Rs. 10,53,857/- u/s. 14A r.w.r.8D. The same issue was therein u/s. 14A r.w.r.8D. The same issue was therein A.Y.2011-12. However, disallowable expenditure is to be made 12. However, disallowable expenditure

JOSEPH MUDALIAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

56(2)(viib), ignoring the fact that property was booked under construction in OCT2013 when the property market price was lower. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs. 150000/ being development charges paid to builders for 4 flats & bank interest of Rs.173308/- paid during construction period while calculating long term capital gain, ignoring the fact that these

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

56(1) towards the market value of the shares of Zee News Ltd. received from the holding company at nil consideration, the disallowance of Rs.1,65,85,334/- was made u/s 14A, disallowance of expenses of Rs.2,58,769/- was made u/s 37 of the Act and addition of 2 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 interest on Income Tax refund

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

56(1) towards the market value of the shares of Zee News Ltd. received from the holding company at nil consideration, the disallowance of Rs.1,65,85,334/- was made u/s 14A, disallowance of expenses of Rs.2,58,769/- was made u/s 37 of the Act and addition of 2 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 interest on Income Tax refund

DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. ATEEV V GALA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-17(2), Ateev V. Gala, R. No.217, 02Nd Floor, 575/A, The Orient Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Jamshed Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Matunga Mumbai-400019 Pan No.Aalpg6039N (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

disallowance of Rs.85 lakhs received as gift from HUF without appreciating the fact that HUF does not come under the term ‘group of relatives’ defined u/s 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. During hearing, Shri R.P. Meena, ld. CIT-DR, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by advancing arguments, which is identical

KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

Appeal is partly allowed

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

section 56(2)(x) is held to be valid by me. In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are rejected/dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is disallowed

HBS VIEW PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

disallowance of Rs. 76,66,066/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was related to the excess interest claimed by the assessee under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act and the interest claimed was not exclusively linked to the loan utilized for the acquisition of the 19th-floor property, which is let out. 2. "On facts and circumstances

DY CIT. CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S TRAVECOM GLOBAL P. LTD., BHAYANDER

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section (s) Issue Ground of Appeal of IT/Act 56(2)(viib) Disallowance of 1. The Assessing Officer has erred in making

INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI vs. IDBI STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

56 of the Act as ‘income from other sources', however, by an explicit\nprovision in form of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, this income has been made tax-exempt.\nHence, it is held that the impugned income falls more appropriately under section\n80P(2)(d) of the Act and not under 80P(2

M/S.IMPACT RETAILTECH FUND PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2050/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

disallowed and resultant income has been further reduced by "Provision for investment done earlier year no longer required written off' to arrive at Business income of Rs. NIL, claiming it was added back in A.Y. 2011-12. While computing tax payable u/s 115JB, the provision as mentioned above has been reduced from the Book profit as well claiming that such

DCIT 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KILITCH HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

disallowance of Rs.40,03,820 u/s. 14A and addition of Rs.41,94,79,280 u/s. 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 4. Apropos issue of addition under section

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

56(c)(ccv) of part V of the Banking Regulation Act and is a co the Banking Regulation Act and is a co-operative bank and since operative bank and since assessee is covered within the purvie assessee is covered within the purview of a primary co mary co-operative bank, the provisions o , the provisions of section

JALALUDDIN MOHAMMED ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1)(4) MUMBAI, BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jalaluddin Mohammed Ali Khan, Ito Ward-26(1)(4), A/9 Sharif Market Laxminarayan Pratyakshakar Bhavan C-11 Vs. Mandir Road, Off Kherani Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakinaka, S.O. Bandra East, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Anppk 9394 P Appellant Respondent

section 56(1)(vii) of the Act, benefit of first proviso cannot be first proviso cannot be allowed in the case of the assessee and accordingly he sustained the in the case of the assessee and accordingly he sustained the in the case of the assessee and accordingly he sustained the disallowance observing as under: disallowance observing as under

M/S UNIHEALTH CONSULTANCY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8 (3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Unihealth Consultancy Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(3)(1), H-13 & H-14 Everest, 9Th Floor, Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Tardeo Road, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcu 1551 C Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Act. In the grounds raised, the assessee is aggrieved with the grounds raised, the assessee is aggrieved with the grounds raised, the assessee is aggrieved with the sustaining of the disallowance of Rs.4,20,00,000/- in respect of sustaining of the disallowance of Rs.4,20,00,000/ sustaining of the disallowance of Rs.4

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 56(2)(viib) which was brought with effect from 01.04.2013, i.e., A.Y. 2013-14 to treat excess share premium over and above the fair market value of the share as income chargeable to tax. Accordingly, he deleted the addition of Rs.254,45,97,000. 20. Lastly, with regard to disallowance

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 56(2)(viib) which was brought with effect from 01.04.2013, i.e., A.Y. 2013-14 to treat excess share premium over and above the fair market value of the share as income chargeable to tax. Accordingly, he deleted the addition of Rs.254,45,97,000. 20. Lastly, with regard to disallowance