SUSHENA PROPERTIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5130/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sushena Properties Ltd., बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income The Times Of India Building, Tax -1(3), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai-400001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5257/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sushena Properties Ltd., Tax -1(3), 564, 5Th Floor, The Times Of India Building, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001

Section 22 of the Act provides that the annual value of the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto, of which, the assessee is the owner, shall be chargeable to tax under the head „income from house property‟. In this regard, it is of little moment that the assessee owner is a company formed with the object

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years are partly

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Years: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Leasing & Income Tax-Range 10(1) Financial Services Limited बनाम/ Mumbai The Il&Fs Financial Center Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F Assessment Years: 2005-06 Infrastructure Leasing & Addl. Commissioner Of Financial Services Limited Income Tax-Range 10(1) बनाम/ The Il&Fs Financial Center Mumbai Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F Assessment Years: 2006-07 Addl. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Leasing & Income Tax-Range 10(1) Financial Services Limited बनाम/ Mumbai The Il&Fs Financial Center Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F

house property’ in addition to depreciation and other maintenance expenses claimed, the Ld. AR for the assessee, fairly accepted that this aspect has not been examined by the authorities below and also there is no finding from the Tribunal in the earlier years. Therefore, the issue may be set-aside to the file of the AO for verification of facts

RAYMOND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. -2(3), 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. 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

COASTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 2298/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, The Income Tax Officer 34, Sant Tukaram Road, 6(2)(1), फनाभ/ Carnac Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400009 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी की ओय से / Applicant By : Shri Farrokh V Irani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 15.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated25.2.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against Upholding The Order Of Assessing Officer As Regards Interest Income From Securities Deposited With Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd (Hereinafter Referred To As Pgvcl) For Availing Electricity For The Purposes Of Construction Of Power

house property, it could also setup another line of business, it might even pay dividends out of this income to its shareholders. There was no overriding title of anybody diverting the income at source to pay the amount to the creditors of the company. It is well-settled that tax is attracted at the point when the income is earned

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property. 20. As far as profits and gains of business or profession are concerned by section 28 these are set out. The income therein shall be chargeable to income tax under this head and the clause thereof would indicate as to how the sub-headings of compensation, income derived by trade, professional or similar association from specific service performed

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property. 20. As far as profits and gains of business or profession are concerned by section 28 these are set out. The income therein shall be chargeable to income tax under this head and the clause thereof would indicate as to how the sub-headings of compensation, income derived by trade, professional or similar association from specific service performed

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

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

ASHRAJ FOODS & VEVERAGES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicted hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Ashraj Foods & Vs. Ito – 9(1)-1, Mumbai Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.23, Galaxy Apts., B.J.Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5134E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 35D. This expenditure was allowed to assessee by department in previous year also after proper verification. This preliminary expenditure is 7 M/s. Ashraj Foods & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., reflected in audit report in previous year figure and after claiming 1/5th installment balance amount is reflected in current year. The AO disallowed 1/5th of the expenditure claimed during the year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN EXPRESS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 35D. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under: “5.1 Ground No. 1 5.1.1 This ground relates to disallowance of claim of Rs. 5,65,4047- u/s. 35D of the Act. The assessing officer has discussed this issue at para 4 of his order. The assessing

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

KULODAY TECHNOPACK P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

house agent on behalf of importers held as under:— "9. We have considered submissions of ld representatives of parties and orders of authorities below. 10. During the course of hearing, ld D.R. has not disputed the fact that assessee received the said payment aggregating to Rs.18,79,38,741 on account of reimbursement of expenses from its clients apart from

SIDDHESH CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Amarjit Singh, J.M. आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 6532/Mum/2012,धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, P.Ltd,122, Maker Chamber Iii, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai. Pan: Aaccs4582N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2489/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Vs. Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2517/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta स नर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/01/2018 आयकर अधधधनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1) के अन्द्तगवत आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सदस्य,राजेन्द्र के अन सार -Per Rajendra,Am: Challenging The Orders Dated 26.06.2012 & 12.01.2015 Of Cit(A)-7 & Cit-8,Respectively, The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years.As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common,So,We Are Adjudicat- Ing Them Together. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance,Trading, Investment & Derivative Transaction In Shares & Securities. The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessments & Assessed Incomes Can Be Tabulated As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asstt.Date Assessed Income 09-10 22.09.2009 (-) Rs.81,01,51,079/- 30.11.2011 (-) Rs.80,82,06,669/- 10-11 21.09.2010 Rs. 48,14,034/- 11.02.2013 Rs. 49,72,360/-

35D,that it was also claimed that the expenditure was allowable u/s. 35 DD, that the claim made by the assessee was not allowable, that it had not furnished any supporting evidence in that regard, that it had separately claimed deduction u/s. 35 DD under the head amortization/ amalga -mation/demerger expenses,that in the audit report it was specifically mentio

SIDDHESH CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Amarjit Singh, J.M. आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 6532/Mum/2012,धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, P.Ltd,122, Maker Chamber Iii, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai. Pan: Aaccs4582N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2489/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Vs. Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2517/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta स नर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/01/2018 आयकर अधधधनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1) के अन्द्तगवत आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सदस्य,राजेन्द्र के अन सार -Per Rajendra,Am: Challenging The Orders Dated 26.06.2012 & 12.01.2015 Of Cit(A)-7 & Cit-8,Respectively, The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years.As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common,So,We Are Adjudicat- Ing Them Together. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance,Trading, Investment & Derivative Transaction In Shares & Securities. The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessments & Assessed Incomes Can Be Tabulated As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asstt.Date Assessed Income 09-10 22.09.2009 (-) Rs.81,01,51,079/- 30.11.2011 (-) Rs.80,82,06,669/- 10-11 21.09.2010 Rs. 48,14,034/- 11.02.2013 Rs. 49,72,360/-

35D,that it was also claimed that the expenditure was allowable u/s. 35 DD, that the claim made by the assessee was not allowable, that it had not furnished any supporting evidence in that regard, that it had separately claimed deduction u/s. 35 DD under the head amortization/ amalga -mation/demerger expenses,that in the audit report it was specifically mentio

DCIT CIR 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIDDHESH CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Amarjit Singh, J.M. आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 6532/Mum/2012,धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, P.Ltd,122, Maker Chamber Iii, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai. Pan: Aaccs4582N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2489/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Vs. Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2517/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta स नर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/01/2018 आयकर अधधधनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1) के अन्द्तगवत आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सदस्य,राजेन्द्र के अन सार -Per Rajendra,Am: Challenging The Orders Dated 26.06.2012 & 12.01.2015 Of Cit(A)-7 & Cit-8,Respectively, The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years.As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common,So,We Are Adjudicat- Ing Them Together. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance,Trading, Investment & Derivative Transaction In Shares & Securities. The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessments & Assessed Incomes Can Be Tabulated As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asstt.Date Assessed Income 09-10 22.09.2009 (-) Rs.81,01,51,079/- 30.11.2011 (-) Rs.80,82,06,669/- 10-11 21.09.2010 Rs. 48,14,034/- 11.02.2013 Rs. 49,72,360/-

35D,that it was also claimed that the expenditure was allowable u/s. 35 DD, that the claim made by the assessee was not allowable, that it had not furnished any supporting evidence in that regard, that it had separately claimed deduction u/s. 35 DD under the head amortization/ amalga -mation/demerger expenses,that in the audit report it was specifically mentio

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathatata Motors Ltd. Vs. The Cit(Ltu) 29Th Floor, Centre 1 Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Hutatma Chowk Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

House, 24 Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Hutatma Chowk Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 PAN/GIR No.AAACT2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri.R.Manjunatha Swamy, CIT, DR Assessee by Shri. Rajan Vora & Shri.Nikhil Tiwari, AR’s Date of Hearing 25/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement 13/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA: This appeal filed