RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

house property. The assessee is aggrieved by the direction of the CIT(A) to determine the annual value of the property at 12% of the cost of land and building. At the very outset, the Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal vide

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

house property. The assessee is aggrieved by the direction of the CIT(A) to determine the annual value of the property at 12% of the cost of land and building. At the very outset, the Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal vide

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Homi Mody Street ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAATN0202B Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 14.02.2022 Date of Order – 10.03.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Homi Mody Street ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAATN0202B Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 14.02.2022 Date of Order – 10.03.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Homi Mody Street ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAATN0202B Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 14.02.2022 Date of Order – 10.03.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Homi Mody Street ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAATN0202B Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 14.02.2022 Date of Order – 10.03.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Homi Mody Street ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAATN0202B Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 14.02.2022 Date of Order – 10.03.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Homi Mody Street ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAATN0202B Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 14.02.2022 Date of Order – 10.03.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Homi Mody Street ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAATN0202B Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 14.02.2022 Date of Order – 10.03.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Homi Mody Street ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAATN0202B Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 14.02.2022 Date of Order – 10.03.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

MAHALAXMI ENGINEERING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7029/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

House Property" 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the grounds of interest under section 234C and 234D

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

house ITA No. 5242, 5302/MUM/2013 Hindalco Industries Ltd,; A.Y.2007-08 property no other deduction other than provided in Section 24 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is allowable? 16. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the adjustment made by the TPO on account of receipt

HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

house ITA No. 5242, 5302/MUM/2013 Hindalco Industries Ltd,; A.Y.2007-08 property no other deduction other than provided in Section 24 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is allowable? 16. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the adjustment made by the TPO on account of receipt

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

House Property; (iii) Capital Gains; (iv) Income from other sources. (v) Profits & Gains of business (Section 28 to 43B) Apart from above, the provisions of section 44 would also override provisions of section 199 relating to credit of tax deducted for the purpose of computation of income.. It is no denying the fact that the assessing being in insurance

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

House Property; (iii) Capital Gains; (iv) Income from other sources. (v) Profits & Gains of business (Section 28 to 43B) Apart from above, the provisions of section 44 would also override provisions of section 199 relating to credit of tax deducted for the purpose of computation of income.. It is no denying the fact that the assessing being in insurance

HUHTAMAKI INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 6, MUMBAI

234D\n1,56,035/-\nAfter the hearing from assessee in proceeding u/s 263 of the Act, the Id. PCIT has\ntreated the impugned assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the\ninterest of revenueand set aside the assessment order. Being aggrieved on the\nrevision order passed under section 263 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal\nbefore

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property; (iii) Capital Gains; (iv) Income from other sources. (v) Profits & Gains of business (Section 28 to 43B) Apart from above, the provisions of section 44 would also override provisions of section 199 relating to credit of tax deducted for the purpose of computation of income.. It is no denying the fact that the assessing being in insurance

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property; (iii) Capital Gains; (iv) Income from other sources. (v) Profits & Gains of business (Section 28 to 43B) Apart from above, the provisions of section 44 would also override provisions of section 199 relating to credit of tax deducted for the purpose of computation of income.. It is no denying the fact that the assessing being in insurance