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 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exemrjt income". This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. 14.6. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any infirmity in the order

SHARAN HOSPITALITY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

1) as if such house or houses had been let.’ [emphasis, by underlining, ours] The facts 3. The facts of the case are simple and undisputed. The assessee company during the previous year under consideration acquired two properties, i.e., at S. V. Road, Mumbai and Vile Parle, Mumbai. The S.V. Road property was acquired on December 18, 2008 from

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com 78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, MUMBAI

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

section 143(3). The assessing officer while passing assessment order made addition of Rs. 51,98,928/-on account of annual letting value (ALV) of property at Flat No.11, Rambha Co- operative Group Housing Society, at Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai against the income declared from house property of Rs. 2,797/-. The assessing officer also denied long-term capital loss

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that no addition

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

J.R.D. TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 2(4) (NOW ASSSESSED BY THE DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

House, 24, Homi Commissioner of Income-tax Mody Street, Fort, Vs. (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sukh Sagar Sayal, ARs प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri Rajat Mittal, DR ुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 24.06.2019 घोषणा की

DCIT (E)- 2(1), MUMBAI vs. J.R.D TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

House, 24, Homi Commissioner of Income-tax Mody Street, Fort, Vs. (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sukh Sagar Sayal, ARs प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri Rajat Mittal, DR ुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 24.06.2019 घोषणा की

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