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

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

section 23(3)(a). Not so doing would lead to absurd results, as in a case where the property is not let for a single day of the year, and is vacant for the whole year, so that its AV would stand to be computed taking the let-able value for the entire year, while if it is let even

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

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

CLASSIC MALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 24.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2 Classic Mall Development Company Limited, AY 2016-17 2. The sole issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of addition of Rs.56,26,656/- under the head “income from house property” in respect of vacant units

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR - 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, held that the State Governments have not given any amount of subsidy either in cash or in-kind to the assessee. It was further held that the object of the government is to grant Sales Tax exemption is to increase sales. It was further held that under the scheme, the assessee is not required

THE ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, held that the State Governments have not given any amount of subsidy either in cash or in-kind to the assessee. It was further held that the object of the government is to grant Sales Tax exemption is to increase sales. It was further held that under the scheme, the assessee is not required

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

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

253(3) of the Act providing limitation in in filing in the appeal to the ITAT, to the ITAT, are plain and unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for filing the appeal before the filing the appeal

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

253(3) of the Act providing limitation in in filing in the appeal to the ITAT, to the ITAT, are plain and unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for filing the appeal before the filing the appeal

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Housing Development Company (supra) has, however, been pleased to express different view, however, as per the established proposition of law, we are bound to follow the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court and since, the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court have expressed different views on the issue, the view favourable

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Housing Development Company (supra) has, however, been pleased to express different view, however, as per the established proposition of law, we are bound to follow the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court and since, the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court have expressed different views on the issue, the view favourable

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Housing Development Company (supra) has, however, been pleased to express different view, however, as per the established proposition of law, we are bound to follow the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court and since, the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court have expressed different views on the issue, the view favourable