M/S. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AAACR4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Department by : Shri Samuel Pitta Date of Hearing : 18.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 2 ITA NO. 2660& 2519/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Raymond Limited O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

35D. 7. During the assessment proceedings before us, the Ld AR stated that the said expenditure was incurred in connection with the issue of shares for increase in share capital. AO made disallowance basing on the apex court judgments in the case of M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd (225 ITR 798)(SC) and M/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

35D. 7. During the assessment proceedings before us, the Ld AR stated that the said expenditure was incurred in connection with the issue of shares for increase in share capital. AO made disallowance basing on the apex court judgments in the case of M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd (225 ITR 798)(SC) and M/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation

ASTARC ENTERPRISES PVT LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS REAL STONE HOUSE PROPERTIES PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(3)(2) (CURRENT JURISDICTION), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Properties Pvt. Ltd.,) DCIT – 13(3)(2) 76-79 Takpada, Makwana Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACR6125L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented by : Shri Ujjawal Kumar Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 12.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

ASTARC ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Properties Pvt. Ltd.,) DCIT – 13(3)(2) 76-79 Takpada, Makwana Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACR6125L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented by : Shri Ujjawal Kumar Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 12.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house cost of production of program as revenue expenditure and balance 15% is to be allowed in three years in three equal installments. This is identical to ground number 4 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. The assessing officer is further aggrieved where the non-deduction of tax on carriage fees, channel placement fees resulted

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house cost of production of program as revenue expenditure and balance 15% is to be allowed in three years in three equal installments. This is identical to ground number 4 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. The assessing officer is further aggrieved where the non-deduction of tax on carriage fees, channel placement fees resulted

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house cost of production of program as revenue expenditure and balance 15% is to be allowed in three years in three equal installments. This is identical to ground number 4 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. The assessing officer is further aggrieved where the non-deduction of tax on carriage fees, channel placement fees resulted

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house cost of production of program as revenue expenditure and balance 15% is to be allowed in three years in three equal installments. This is identical to ground number 4 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. The assessing officer is further aggrieved where the non-deduction of tax on carriage fees, channel placement fees resulted

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation Page No. | 15 ITA NO. 465 & 931/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2015-16) UltraTech Cement Limited demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation Page No. | 15 ITA NO. 465 & 931/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2015-16) UltraTech Cement Limited demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 115TA of the Act\nprovides for different rates for different Assessees, which\nsubstantiates that the tax paid by trust u/s 115TA of the Act is the\ntax paid on behalf of the Assessee. The taxability in the hands of\nthe Securitisation trust.\nThus, the interest income of the Assessee, though not taxed in the\nhands of the Assessee (investor

YES BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 10(34)\nof the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income\nand is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of\nthe Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between\ntaxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share and Stock\n\nM/s Yes Bank

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was ntime, section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was ntime, section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was ntime, section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred

DCIT CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was ntime, section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred