CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

HOUSE, 7TH\nBARRACK ROAD BOMBAY HOSPITAL\nLANE\nMUMBAI 400020, Maharashtra\nIndia\nPAN:\nAAACC4120G\nA.Y:\n2018-19\nDated:\n14/03/2022\nDIN & Notice No:\nITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-\n22/1040721057(1)\nNotice under clause(b) of section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nSir/Madam/M/s\n1. Whereas I have information which suggests that income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year\n2018-19 has escaped

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt income

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt income

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt income

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt income

INSPIRE FILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House Lane, Behind Inorbit Mall, ……………. Appellant Mindspace, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064 PAN : AACC18324A v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Rahul K. Hakani Revenue by : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 03/10/2024 Date of Order – 17/12/2024 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against

SHREE JALARAM BUILDERS & DEV. ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3) (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

housing society. However, from Form 3CD of Audit Report, it was found that the assessee had not deducted TDS on such amount. The Ld AO held that the assessee has paid rent to the society members as per the terms and conditions mentioned in re-development Agreement dated 28.03.2013. In the said agreement, it was clearly mentioned that the Developer

BEAMS RESEARCH COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(3) (CURRENT JURIDICTION CIRCLE-4(1)(1)), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Ito-12(1)(3), Mumbai [Current Jurisdiction Circle Beams Research Company Pvt. 4(1)(1), Mumbai) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Plot No. 674, Beams Hospital, Vs. 16Th Cross Road, Khar West, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400052 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb4683P Assessee By : Mr. Snehal Shah Revenue By : Shri. Ashok Ambastha Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

house property of ₹ 1,374,931/– against the income of ₹ 3,789,183/– reflected in the head income from other sources and determined unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 2,880,287/–. 05. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish a detailed note on nature of business activities undertaken during the year and also furnish copy of earlier

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

194J read with section 9(i)(vii) of the Act. As the\nassessee failed to deduct the tax at source, the entire expenditure towards\nroaming charges was proposed to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act, added to the total income of the assessee. The\ndetailed objections filed by the assessee

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

194J read with section 9(i)(vii) of the Act. As the\nassessee failed to deduct the tax at source, the entire expenditure towards\nroaming charges was proposed to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act, added to the total income of the assessee. The\ndetailed objections filed by the assessee