M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

property of the Housing Board. It was held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively on the welfare of the employees and, therefore, constituted legitimate business expenditure. As the assessee company acquired no ownership rights in the tenements, this Court said that the expenditure was incurred merely with a view to carry on the business of the company more

SAMEER KISHORE KOTICHA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

244A. 4.2 Appellant's submissions are duly considered. Appellant submitted bank loan statement as proof of taking housing loan, on which interest is being paid. Appellant claims it is "deemed let-out property". As per income tax law, when an assessee has more than one house property, he can live in one property and all other properties are deemed

H.U.F. OF HIS LATE HIGHNESS SIR J.M. SCINDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE -18(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Us :-

House Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 462, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel Mumbai- 400 013 PAN/GIR No.AAAHH0403A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved Revenue by Shri S.G. Mehta Date of Hearing 31/05/2022 Date of Pronouncement 11/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.5536/Mum/2019 for A.Y.1997-98 arises out of the order

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

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

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. 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

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. 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

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House property. The net result would be Nill. There is no change in the tax rate for both the heads of income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is allowed in this regard considering the above discussions. 26. With regard to Ground No. 6, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this ground is not pressed, accordingly the same

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House property. The net result would be Nill. There is no change in the tax rate for both the heads of income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is allowed in this regard considering the above discussions. 26. With regard to Ground No. 6, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this ground is not pressed, accordingly the same

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

house property\". The assessee was asked to explain why standard deduction claimed u/s. 24(a) of “the Act” at 30% of Rs. 81,59,680/- in respect of the rental income derived from the property shall not be disallowed. The assessee filed the reply on 23.09.2016 and the Ld. AO after considering the submissions of the assessee and also following

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(1), CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI

house property”. The\nassessee was asked to explain why standard deduction claimed u/s.\n24(a) of “the Act” at 30% of Rs. 81,59,680/- in respect of the rental\nincome derived from the property shall not be disallowed. The assessee\nfiled the reply on 23.09.2016 and the Ld. AO after considering the\nsubmissions of the assessee and also following

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

House Property Income under section 41(3) 30,502 – Sale of RTC asset Employee Stock Option 9,41,63,548 debited to P&L – IND AS adjustment Disallowance under section 35,92,56,632 Sec 40(a) (as per TAR) Disallowance under section 5,87,47,640 Sec 43B (as per TAR) Amortisation of Prepaid 1,75,82,362 Expenses