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

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021, which further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration, particularly in cases involving specified transactions. The addition of Rs. 3,26,58,000/- is in line with the statutory provisions and should have been upheld

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

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(vii) etc. It was also held that as per the provisions of law prevailing during the year under consideration, the gift received by one corporate body from another corporate bodies do not come under the ambit of income as contemplated under section 2(24) or any other provisions of the Act. While referring and following the decision

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(vii) etc. It was also held that as per the provisions of law prevailing during the year under consideration, the gift received by one corporate body from another corporate bodies do not come under the ambit of income as contemplated under section 2(24) or any other provisions of the Act. While referring and following the decision

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

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 18. Having held so, the second aspect of the issue which requires consideration is whether the exception to section 50C(1) by way of third proviso and section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The issue is no more res integra in view of a number of decisions of different

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)(vii

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

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 ()

vii. Depreciation Depreciation Rs. 50,00,000 b. Rule 8D(2)(ii) Rule 8D(2)(ii) Rs. 1,16,79,947 c Rule 8D(2)(iii) Rule 8D(2)(iii) Rs. 1,07,39,195 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law and without 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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 56(2)(vii

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)

disallowed and addition of Rs. 18,48,70,810/- is upheld.” 6. Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 2 above. 7. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee placed reliance upon the written submissions and supplementary written submissions filed during the hearing. While the Learned Departmental Representative placed

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

Disallowance of 1. The Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of share premium 1,75,03,410 u/s 56(2)(viib) towards share premium in spite of submitting the valuation report as well as detailed submissions with documentary evidence containing all the necessary reasons considered for the issue of share premium, especially (and among others) with respect to provenance

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

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) :

vii) or (viia) so as to be held taxable under the head income of other source. This has been explained in the explanatory note at the time of insertion of clause (x) of the Section 56(2) by the P a g e | 48 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 Finance

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) :

vii) or (viia) so as to be held taxable under the head income of other source. This has been explained in the explanatory note at the time of insertion of clause (x) of the Section 56(2) by the P a g e | 48 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 Finance

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

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

disallowing the claim made by the assessee U/s.\n80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We have perused the ratio laid down by the\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Totgars Cooperative Sale Society\nLtd (supra) and found that in that case the society is engaged in\nmarketing of the agricultural produce by its members

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

TATVA GLOABAL ENVIRONMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumartatva Global Environment Ltd Vs Ito-9(3)(3), (Now Known As Tatva Global Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Environment Pvt Ltd) Mumbai Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt Dcit, Cent.Cir.6(3), Vs Tatva Global Environment Ltd Mumbai (Now Known As Tatva Global Environment Pvt Ltd) Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt

disallowance u/s 56(2)(viia). The assessing officer treated the investment in shares as income under section 56(2) (viia) of Rs.5,28,07,024/-. On appeal the CIT(A), restricted the addition to Rs.10,58,250/- and remaining addition was deleted. The assessee has challenged the action of AO in upholding to the extent

SHRI MOHD. ILYAS ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

vii)(b) being the difference in Stamp Duty Valuation and the purchase consideration paid, for the reason that though the assessee disputed valuation no reference was made to the Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer, when remand report was called for by the Ld.CIT(A) as the assessee furnished nearest sale instances as comparables even at that stage the Assessing