ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the\nHon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case\nMaxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court\nin the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A\nof the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

houses. Further, the services offered by Indian group companies need a sophisticated computer program that can monitor, track and maintain such transactions and loyalty/rewards points. The AO further observed that for this purpose the assessee is required to maintain the customer’s individual profile where the personal information, as well as their transaction track, can be kept in the assessee

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

houses. Further, the services offered by Indian group companies need a sophisticated computer program that can monitor, track and maintain such transactions and loyalty/rewards points. The AO further observed that for this purpose the assessee is required to maintain the customer’s individual profile where the personal information, as well as their transaction track, can be kept in the assessee

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

houses. Further, the services offered by Indian group companies need a sophisticated computer program that can monitor, track and maintain such transactions and loyalty/rewards points. The AO further observed that for this purpose the assessee is required to maintain the customer’s individual profile where the personal information, as well as their transaction track, can be kept in the assessee

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

houses. Further, the services offered by Indian group companies need a sophisticated computer program that can monitor, track and maintain such transactions and loyalty/rewards points. The AO further observed that for this purpose the assessee is required to maintain the customer’s individual profile where the personal information, as well as their transaction track, can be kept in the assessee

HASMUKH DIPCHAND GARDI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

section 153A. On the facts and circumstances of the\ncase and in law, CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment order\nin the absence of any incriminating material for the assessment year\nunder reference.\nThe below grounds are without prejudice to ground No. 1 and 2\nC) Re-computing Long Term Capital Gain\n3. Ld. CIT (A) has erred

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1) of the Act to the Addl. CIT of Income-tax Act, an officer not having jurisdiction in accordance with the Explanation to section 92CA inserted for the purpose of this section. 7) The Addl. CIT (TP), the officer not covered under the definition of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the purpose of this section erred in passing the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1) of the Act to the Addl. CIT of Income-tax Act, an officer not having jurisdiction in accordance with the Explanation to section 92CA inserted for the purpose of this section. 7) The Addl. CIT (TP), the officer not covered under the definition of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the purpose of this section erred in passing the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

144C(5) of the Act. 1.1. The facts in brief are that the Assessee-Company filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 on 11/10/2010 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, Assessee filed revised return of income on 29/03/2012, inter-alia, on account of demerger of passive infrastructure assets. In the revised return

RITA SUNIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

house property on 02/02/2011 claimed deduction of long term capital gain in terms of provisions of section 54 of the act.The learned assessing officer took date of purchase agreement 25/7/2009 as date purchase of property , the deduction under section 54 of the act was not allowed. 012. Thus, draft assessment order under section 144C (1

SUNIL AMRITLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

house property on 02/02/2011 claimed deduction of long term capital gain in terms of provisions of section 54 of the act.The learned assessing officer took date of purchase agreement 25/7/2009 as date purchase of property , the deduction under section 54 of the act was not allowed. 012. Thus, draft assessment order under section 144C (1

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

properties is generally provided through in room television set and the advertisement / article in the Taj magazine / Coffee Table magazine kept in the rooms of overseas hotel units. - It is further submitted that in competitive industry like hospitality, apart from retaining existing customers, it is must to reach out the customers to widen its customer base in best possible manner

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act pursuant to the directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) for the Assessment Years (‘AYs’) 2015-16, 2018-19 & 2019-20, respectively. Since issues involved in all the appeals are common and are arising out of identical facts, all the appeals are being heard together and are being disposed

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act pursuant to the directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) for the Assessment Years (‘AYs’) 2015-16, 2018-19 & 2019-20, respectively. Since issues involved in all the appeals are common and are arising out of identical facts, all the appeals are being heard together and are being disposed

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT)-1 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act pursuant to the directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) for the Assessment Years (‘AYs’) 2015-16, 2018-19 & 2019-20, respectively. Since issues involved in all the appeals are common and are arising out of identical facts, all the appeals are being heard together and are being disposed

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

144C(5) of the Act. The\nAO, in conformity with the directions issued by the learned DRP, made the\nimpugned addition vide final assessment order. Being aggrieved, the assessee\nis in appeal before us.\n18.\nWe have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the\nmaterial available on record. We find that this issue is no longer res integra