ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.' (ii) Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act :— 'Section 195 - Other sums: (1

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.' (ii) Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act :— 'Section 195 - Other sums: (1

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

M/S.EMCO DYESTUFF PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Emco Dyestuff Dcit 12(2)(1), Private Ltd. 5Th Floor, Unit No. 304, Earnest House, V. Western Edge, Nariman Point, W E Highway, Mumbai-400021 Dattapada Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaace1167D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Snehal R. Shah Revenue By: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 703/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.10.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-20/Dcit-12(2)(1)/It-10040/16- 17 For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018

House Property‟, the depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO observed that standard deduction of 30% is allowed towards maintenance as statutory deduction and hence depreciation cannot be allowed on these let out properties . The AO observed that assessee was required to reduce value of such let out properties from „Block of Assets‟ before claiming depreciation because as per AO , depreciation

ACIT (TDS) -2(1), MUMBAI vs. OMKAR REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Omkar Realtors & Developers Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Omkar House, Off Eastern Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Vs. Express Highway, Bldg., Charni Road (W), Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Mumbai - 400002 Sion, Mumbai - 400022 Pan: Aaaco7919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 237/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6814/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Omkar House, Off Eastern Express 6Th Floor, Smt. K.G. Mittal Highway, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Charni Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Sion Road (West), East, Mumbai - 400022 Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaaco7919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Omkar Realtors & Developers Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Omkar House, Off Eastern Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Vs. Express Highway, Bldg., Charni Road (W), Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Mumbai - 400002 Sion, Mumbai - 400022 Pan: Aaaco7919F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 201 by Finance Act, 2014 being clarificatory in nature, will apply retrospectively. Therefore, the extended limitation period of seven years will apply to assessee’s case. In the further appeal, the coordinate Bench, after hearing both the sides, reversed the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) held that the order passed u/s 201 (1) and 201 (1A) having been

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

property documents, etc. It is also noted that for A.Y. 2007-08, the contention of the assessee as well as other details, contention of the Assessing Officer were considered holding that the period of stay of the assessee in India was 173 days as against 178 days determined by the Assessing Officer, meaning thereby, the period of stay was less

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) have fixed deposits with the bank, however, while crediting payment of interest on such deposits, no TDS was deducted by the Bank, during the financial year under consideration. Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) 7. The assessee during the spot verification submitted that as per the provisions

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) have fixed deposits with the bank, however, while crediting payment of interest on such deposits, no TDS was deducted by the Bank, during the financial year under consideration. Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) 7. The assessee during the spot verification submitted that as per the provisions

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property. 20. As far as profits and gains of business or profession are concerned by section 28 these are set out. The income therein shall be chargeable to income tax under this head and the clause thereof would indicate as to how the sub-headings of compensation, income derived by trade, professional or similar association from specific service performed

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property. 20. As far as profits and gains of business or profession are concerned by section 28 these are set out. The income therein shall be chargeable to income tax under this head and the clause thereof would indicate as to how the sub-headings of compensation, income derived by trade, professional or similar association from specific service performed

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

House Hunghom, Kowloon Ballard Pier Hongkong Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai Address: M/s. Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd., C/o. DSK Legal 4th Floor, Express Towers Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Deputy Director of Vs. M/s. Satellite Television Asian Income-Tax (International Region Ltd., Taxation)-2(1) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

201(1). The ld AR further submitted that the facts for the year under consideration is identical and therefore the above decision is applicable for the year under consideration also. In this regard we notice that the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 while considering the similar issue held that – “12. We have heard both

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

201(1). The ld AR further submitted that the facts for the year under consideration is identical and therefore the above decision is applicable for the year under consideration also. In this regard we notice that the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 while considering the similar issue held that – “12. We have heard both