TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act by producing evidences with respect to additions of fixed assets before ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 7 the A.O. , whereby relief was granted by the AO of Rs. 1,30,191/- vide orders u/s 154 of the Act dated 27th August, 2012 and to that extent the assessee company

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act by producing evidences with respect to additions of fixed assets before ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 7 the A.O. , whereby relief was granted by the AO of Rs. 1,30,191/- vide orders u/s 154 of the Act dated 27th August, 2012 and to that extent the assessee company

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act by producing evidences with respect to additions of fixed assets before ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 7 the A.O. , whereby relief was granted by the AO of Rs. 1,30,191/- vide orders u/s 154 of the Act dated 27th August, 2012 and to that extent the assessee company

KIRIT D. SANGHVI AND 2 OTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6866/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

rectification of an intimation u/s 143(1) of the ‘Act’, dated. 18.03.2011. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us, raising the following grounds of appeal:- “A Upholding the order u/s. 154 1) The learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) 24, Mumbai [CIT(A)] erred on facts

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

House Property, since the assessee company is not the owner of the said properties during the financial year 2003-04. Further, the assessee company is also not in the business of letting out of premises. Hence, the rental receipts can also not be taxed under the head Business Income. Such rental receipts can only be taxed under the head "Income

INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

rectification application of the assessee in the same terms as was so done by him w.r.t. the issue of disposal of a similar application u/s 154 pertaining to C/forward of ‘LTCL’, which had been discussed by us in Para 9 hereinabove. We have been informed by the Ld. A.R that the aforesaid application filed by the assessee u/s 154

INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

rectification application of the assessee in the same terms as was so done by him w.r.t. the issue of disposal of a similar application u/s 154 pertaining to C/forward of ‘LTCL’, which had been discussed by us in Para 9 hereinabove. We have been informed by the Ld. A.R that the aforesaid application filed by the assessee u/s 154

SAMEER KISHORE KOTICHA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

house property’ amounting to Rs.1,08,81,242, was denied. 5. Separately, vide application dated 28/11/2017, filed under section 154 of the Act, the assessee sought rectification of intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis that interest under section 24(b) of the Act was allowed only to the extent of Rs.2 lakh, however

KANAKA LANDMARK HOLIDAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Landmark Ito Ward 6(3)(4) Holidays Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Flat No. 16, Mumbai. Suryodaya Building, Vs. Sion S.O. , Mumbai- 400022. Pan: Aaeck3352J (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property which included rental income as evidenced in Income Tax Return Form. 4. To rectify the mistake in the intimation order, the assessee filed the rectification request on 10/01/2020 and has received rectification order u/s. 154

VIPUL VASANT PATIL,INDIA vs. CPC, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING SYSTEM OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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 Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vipul Vasant Patil, The Asst. Director Of Heramb Kophrad Income-Tax, Centralized Umbergothan, Agashi, Vs. Processing Centre, Income Virar (W) Tax Department, Palghar-401 301. Bengaluru-560 500. Pan No. Apjpp 7462 H Appellant Respondent : Mr. Abdulkadir Jamsadwala Assessee By Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

house property and other sources. The assessee al and other sources. The assessee also earned salary income and so earned salary income and other income in Singapore for the perio other income in Singapore for the period from 01.12.2017 to d from 01.12.2017 to 31.03.2018 from Unilever ltd 31.03.2018 from Unilever ltd, on which tax was deducted in foreign

DILIP DHARMSEY KHATAU,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dilip Dharmsey Khatau, Ito 3(1)(1) 881/888, Atlanta, Scindia House, 1St बनाम/ 209, Nariman Point, Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpk3729R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. D.J. Jariwala (Ar) Mrs. Surbhi Sharma (Sr. राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Dr)

House, 1st बनाम/ 209, Nariman Point, Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AABPK3729R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mrs. D.J. Jariwala (AR) Mrs. Surbhi Sharma (Sr. राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by DR) 06/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 29/06/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date of Order: आदेश

D.S.K. MADHUBAN (WING A&B ) CO -OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

property tax debited to profit and loss account, but not paid till the due date of filing of return. It was further contended that since the assessee is a cooperative society and neither has any business nor has any business income. Therefore, all the income and expenses are DSK Madhuban (Wing A&B) Co-Op Housing Society, Mumbai solely

D.S.K. MADHUBAN (WING A&B) CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

property tax debited to profit and loss account, but not paid till the due date of filing of return. It was further contended that since the assessee is a cooperative society and neither has any business nor has any business income. Therefore, all the income and expenses are DSK Madhuban (Wing A&B) Co-Op Housing Society, Mumbai solely

GOBINDRAM JAGDISH KAKWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property” and “income from other sources”. 4. As per the reasons for reopening, during Financial Year 2010-11, assessee had sold the property bearing No. 5 in building No. 144 and bearing No. 155, Indian Complex Gundavli, Tal. Bhiwandi vide agreement dated 31.01.2011 for sale consideration of ₹.52,50,000/-. In this regard assessee was asked to file

DHEERAJ TOLARAM TALREJA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Dheeraj Tolaram Income Tax Officer, Talreja International Taxation, A – 605, Ward 4(1)(1) Oberoi Esquire, Air India Building, Oberoi Garden City, Nariman Point, Vs. Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400021. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Adopt3185J (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification request was rejected by the CPC and the order u/s. 154 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 02/06/2022. While the claim of foreign tax credit as per section 90 of the Act was not disallowed, additionally, the loss under the head ‘house property

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

property of any kind has passed to the assessee in respect of development of the infrastructure facility. It means that the assessee has not fulfilled the requirements as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court to get deduction u/s 80 IA. The essential components are completely missing in the agreements on which basis the enterprise can be eligible for deduction

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

property of any kind has passed to the assessee in respect of development of the infrastructure facility. It means that the assessee has not fulfilled the requirements as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court to get deduction u/s 80 IA. The essential components are completely missing in the agreements on which basis the enterprise can be eligible for deduction

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

property amounting to Rs. 11,91,92,670/- cannot be considered for disallowance under the provision of 14A. That the same generate taxable income. He held that this assertion of the assessee needs verification. Therefore he directed the Assessing Officer to verify this fact and compute disallowance u/s. 14A @ 0.5% of the average value of investment. 6. Against this order