BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Properties v. Director of Income-tax [1996] 57 lTD 328 (Bombay,) wherein the Tribunal upheld the argument of the assessee that when an order is passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of a superior authority, the same could not be the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. 1.6. The appellant submits that

DADIBA KALI PUNDOLE ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEM TAX -17(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

246A. (1) Any assessee or any deductor or any collector aggrieved by any of the following orders (whether made before or after the appointed day) may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against— (a) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 115VP or an order against the assessee where the assessee denies

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

house property" and (ii) claim of deduction in respect of provision for income-tax. The CIT (A) & Tribunal deleted the penalty on the ground that the claim for deduction in respect of income-tax was a "human bonafide clerical mistake" as the assessee was a firm not having expert chartered accountants on its payroll. In appeal before the High Court

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

house property’, in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly , in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 90 Taxman 41(SC), explanation 2 added to section 40 of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and , therefore , retrospective.(Reference

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

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. BOROSIL GLASS WORKS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6583/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Borosil Glass Works Ltd, 4Th Floor, Khanna Const. House- Tax Circle 6(1) R No.506, Vs. 44 Dr R G Thandani Marg, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Worli, M K Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacb5484G अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shrimati Bharti Singh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.8.2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To Wrongful Adjudication Of Levy Of Interest Of Rs.71,64,280/- U/S 234C Dehors The Rules, Which Was Not 2 6583/Mum/2013

House- Tax circle 6(1) R No.506, Vs. 44 Dr R G Thandani Marg, 5th floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Worli, M K Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN : AAACB5484G अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue by Shrimati Bharti Singh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 25.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date

ASST CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.4926/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम/ Acit 1(3), General Insurance Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Of India, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 “Suraksha”, 170, J. Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 0615N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri H.S. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Farrokh V. Irani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :10.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :02.03.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Mumbai Dated 21.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal:

246A( 1) of the Act. " 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that except ground No. 3 & 5 the issues in other grounds are decided in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years. 4. With respect to ground No. 1 i.e. whether profit on sale of investment is liable

MR. DHEERAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24 (1)(5), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Mr. Dheeraj Jain Income Tax Officer 24(1)(5), 401, Dipti Pearls, 86, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalgaug, Rajasthan Co-Op. Hsg. Soc, Ltd. Mumbai- 400 012 J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400 059 Pan No. Abmpj3453D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2021

section 234B inasmuch as:- (a) The Assessing Officer has not given an opportunity to the appellant before charging the said interest as required by the principles of nature justice. (b) the charging of interest is not in accordance with law. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforesaid grounds of appeal.” 2. Briefly stated, the assessee

MORYA HOUSE MAKERS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

property named 'Morya Apartment' was at Rs.1,75,00,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,00,000/- shown by the assessee. When it was confronted during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has admitted that the actual sale consideration was at Rs.1,75,00,000/- and Rs.75,00,000/- was received in cash which was not accounted for. However

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Income Tax-3(1)(1) Godrej It Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020

Housing Society Ltd. for sale of building and land appurtenant thereto situated at Chiplun, Maharashtra in June, 2013. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that though the sale price of the property as per the „agreement‟ was Rs. 1,25,00,000/- however, the same as per the stamp duty valuation/market value

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

246A of the act against the impugned order but by the direction of the Honourable High Court. Therefore appeal was filed by the assessee before the learned CIT – A – 47, Mumbai on 30 August 2019 challenging the impugned order. Reasons in Appellate Order Passed by the LD CIT (A) 21. The learned CIT – A perused written submissions made

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

246A of the act against the impugned order but by the direction of the Honourable High Court. Therefore appeal was filed by the assessee before the learned CIT – A – 47, Mumbai on 30 August 2019 challenging the impugned order. Reasons in Appellate Order Passed by the LD CIT (A) 21. The learned CIT – A perused written submissions made