NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

House Property‟ if the property was occupied by the assessee for its business. The buildings have been used by both the entities for their respective businesses. Upon demerger, CSCIL could not have been asked to vacate the said premises immediately. They were allowed to occupy the premises for the purpose of their business for a reasonable time till they were

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

house property as per rent control act, however, no relief was granted giving effect to the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has also not contested the same. Ld. AR on this issue has placed her reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography. It is also submitted that

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore\nstands dismissed

house property as\nper rent control act, however, no relief was granted giving effect to the order of\nLd. CIT(A) and the assessee has also not contested the same. Ld. AR on this issue\nhas placed her reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case\nof Tip Top Typography. It is also submitted that

ITO WD 2(4), THANE vs. SHIV OM UNIVERSAL, BADLAPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

BHAVYA CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the assessee's appeals ITA No

11A) and (11B) (such business being\nhereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and\nsubject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of\nthe assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such\npercentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

property had been approved by MCGM, vide its letter dated 17.12.2009, and full ―Commencement Certificate‖ had been granted on 23.12.2009 (Page 32 of ‗APB‘). Also, the ld. A.R drew our attention to another letter dated 19.10.2010 of Shri Bhupendra Patrawala, Architect, that was addressed to Asst. Engineer, Building Proposals, MCGM, wherein on the basis of certain documents forwarded to MCGM

ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

property had been approved by MCGM, vide its letter dated 17.12.2009, and full ―Commencement Certificate‖ had been granted on 23.12.2009 (Page 32 of ‗APB‘). Also, the ld. A.R drew our attention to another letter dated 19.10.2010 of Shri Bhupendra Patrawala, Architect, that was addressed to Asst. Engineer, Building Proposals, MCGM, wherein on the basis of certain documents forwarded to MCGM

ADIT (E)I(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLIAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

11A of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee is a legal authority and cannot be considered as charitable trust within the meaning of section 11 to 13 of the Act and is engaged commercial activity of development and sale of land. For this Revenue has raised the following ground No. 1 and 2: - “1. That on the facts

BIPIN J SAMPAT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bipin J Sampat, Ito-17(1)(2), 11A, 1St Floor, Vatsa House, R. No.114, 1St Floor, बनाम/ S.A. Barelvi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aedps2760N

11A, 1st Floor, Vatsa House, R. No.114, 1st Floor, बनाम/ S.A. Barelvi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AEDPS2760N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Nilam C. Jadhav S. Padmaja-CIT राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by सुनवाई

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

11A) [***] (12) [***] [(13) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to searches and seizure shall apply, so far as may be, to searches and seizure under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A).] (14) The Board may make rules in relation to any search or seizure under this section ; in particular, and without prejudice

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

11A) [***] (12) [***] [(13) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to searches and seizure shall apply, so far as may be, to searches and seizure under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A).] (14) The Board may make rules in relation to any search or seizure under this section ; in particular, and without prejudice

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

11A) [***] (12) [***] [(13) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to searches and seizure shall apply, so far as may be, to searches and seizure under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A).] (14) The Board may make rules in relation to any search or seizure under this section ; in particular, and without prejudice

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

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com 78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that no addition

ITO (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MATOSHRI ARTS & SPORTS TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhincome Tax Officer-(E)2(1) Matoshri Arts & Sports Trust Room No. 512, Piramal Meenatai Thakeracy Ground Vs. Chambers, Lal Baug Jogeshwri Vikhroli Link Road Parel, Mumbai 400012 Andhri (E), Mumbai 400093 Pan – Aaatm2559G Appellant Respondent

Housing Society vs ITO. The stand of the assessee is that while deciding the issue, the ld. Assessing Officer completely ignored the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Thanthi Trust 247 ITR 785. 2.3. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon [1897] A.C. 22 that opened the door to the formation of a corporate group. If a "one man" corporation could be incorporated, then it would follow that one corporation could be a subsidiary of another. This legal principle is the basis of Holding Structures. It is a common practice in international law, which

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

11A, 5th Floor, Rockside Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Apartment, A Wing, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFJ1230A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Rahul Raman (DR) Assessee by: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 16/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/02/2021 आदेश