NMS ENTRPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -27, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalenms Enterprises Vs. Pr. Cit – 27, Shop No. 1 & 2, Plot Room No. 401, 4Th No. 9, Sector No. 34, Floor, Tower No. 6, Kamothe, Vashi Rly Stn Navi Mumbai-410209 Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai -400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfn9167A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-27, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

364) (Pune) wherein hon'ble Pune tribunal have given categorical finding that effect of the amendment in section 23 can applied prospectively. After considering the decision of hon'ble Delhi HC in n case of Ansal Properties and hon'ble Gujarat HC's decision in case of CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd. [2007] 164 Taxman

ACIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. JAGSHI J CHHEDA, MUMBAI

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

section 22 and 23, for the purpose of determining annual rental value, no amount of interest was required to be added on notional basis on the deposits received from the tenant and for this purpose reliance as placed upon many decisions from various courts of the country. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) held that addition

JAGSHI J. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE - 17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

section 22 and 23, for the purpose of determining annual rental value, no amount of interest was required to be added on notional basis on the deposits received from the tenant and for this purpose reliance as placed upon many decisions from various courts of the country. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) held that addition

PRADIPKUMAR P. KANAKIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR13(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradipkumar Purshottam Dcit, Kanakia, Circle-13(2), बनाम/ C/O- Pratap Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18, Steel Yard House, Iron Mumbai-400020 Market, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400009 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Afvpk8451P

property referred to in sub-s. (2) consists of more than one residential house, exemption would be available only in respect of one house and other self-occupied residential houses will be treated as let 6 Pradipkumar Purushottam Kanakia out. There is no such provision in s. 54 to restrict the exemption of capital gain only to sale

VRINDA SHARAD BAL,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 21 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Vrindasharad Bal, A-7, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Kamdar Building, Gokhale 21, Mumbai, Room No. 364, 3Rd Vs. Road, Dadar, Mumbai- Floor, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, 400028. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aezpb8307E Appellant Respondent

364, 3rd Vs. Road, Dadar, Mumbai- floor, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, 400028. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AEZPB8307E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, AR Revenue by : Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR Date of Hearing : 14/08/2019 Date of pronouncement : 28/08/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15. The appeal

CHANDRU K MIRCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO vide order dated 27.09.2013 levied penalty of `9,29,562/- on four additions/disallowances aggregating to `25,31,284/- which are listed hereunder: - `10,29,364/- (i) Income from House Property

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

IT 24(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. RUPANG C SUCHDE, PUNE

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee as well as the appeal of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Office Of The Ito – 24(3)(4), Shri Rupang C Suchde, 702, 7Th Floor, C/O Kiran Kanani & Piramal Chambers, Associates, Ca, Lalbaug, Vs. 71/A, Rasta Peth, Mumbai - 400012 Opp Israil Church, Narasimha Apartments, Pune – 411 011 Pan: Bhhps1959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.84/M/2016 (Ita No.7183/M/2014) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rupang C Suchde, Office Of The Ito – 24(3)(4), 702, 7Th Floor, C/O Kiran Kanani & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Piramal Chambers, 71/A, Rasta Peth, Vs. Lalbaug, Opp Israil Church, Mumbai - 400012 Narasimha Apartments, Pune – 411 011 Pan: Bhhps1959P (Appellant) (Respondent)

property in Saudi Arabia. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has stated that the facts in this case have not been disputed. The legal proposition involved in this case is whether the assessee is eligible to claim benefit under section 54 of the Act on purchase of a residential house outside India. He has stated that

STERLING & WILSON PROPERTY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 1085/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-2007) Sterling & Wilson Property Income Tax Officer – Developers Pvt. Ltd. 1(3)(2), बिाम/ Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 148, M.G. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs6320E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri M.M. Golvale & Mrs. Hetal Jhakharia, Ar’S प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri K.C. Kanojia, Dr

section 43B, while confirming the above mentioned disallowance of Rs. 7,70,986/-. 2. Facts qua the dispute are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company who filed its Return of Income for impugned AY declaring loss of Rs.26,22,364/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of Property Developers / Civil Engineers. The case was taken

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property at a notional value (v) the adoption of the fair market value for asset transferred(vi) transfer pricing adjustment on international transactions. Further the CIT(A) has granted relief in other grounds of appeal and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee and the revenue have filed an appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WADHWAGROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the\nassessee is partly allowed

house\nproperty?\"\n8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) was justified to delete disallowance made on\nthe account of unallocable expenses without appreciating the\nfact that assessee has failed to prove that these expenses are\nexpanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business\nor profession and thus admissible under provisions

WADHWAGROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the\nassessee is partly allowed

house\nproperty?\"\n8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) was justified to delete disallowance made on\nthe account of unallocable expenses without appreciating the\nfact that assessee has failed to prove that these expenses are\nexpanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business\nor profession and thus admissible under provisions

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit-2(3)(1), Vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Room No.552, 5Th Floor 24, Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-58 24, Bombay House 344, Aayakar Bhavan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

364 days. Accordingly, the ld. TPO applying M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., CUP method adopted the yield on interest rate for one year unsecured bond of 6.878% per annum and compared the same with credit rating of the AE which was at BB rating and for which the yield on interest rate for one year unsecured bond for 3.121% per annum

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

House Property computed at Rs. 22,42,24,077/- qua its eligible deductions granted pursuant to section 24(a) of the Act as has been claimed by the Assessee. The AO ultimately rejected the said claim of the Assessee for deduction of the above expenditures and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

House Property computed at Rs. 22,42,24,077/- qua its eligible deductions granted pursuant to section 24(a) of the Act as has been claimed by the Assessee. The AO ultimately rejected the said claim of the Assessee for deduction of the above expenditures and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

364/- on the ground that these expenses were not for the purpose of the business, notwithstanding that the expenses were incurred for executive committee meeting and training. GROUND NO. 4 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the ACIT in adding an amount of Rs.44,32,282 to the value of closing stock on account of MODVAT. GROUND