ITO 6(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. AMBIENCE BUSINESS SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

House Property’. After making deduction under section 24(1) of the Act, the same was assessed at Rs. 38,11,150/-. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 20,37,012/- was considered under the head “Income from Other Sources” and was assessed accordingly without considering any deduction u/s 57 of the Act. No income was assessed under the head Profits & Gains

DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBIENCE ADVERTISING P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

House Property’. After making deduction under section 24(1) of the Act, the same was assessed at Rs. 38,11,150/-. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 20,37,012/- was considered under the head “Income from Other Sources” and was assessed accordingly without considering any deduction u/s 57 of the Act. No income was assessed under the head Profits & Gains

AMBIENCE BUSINESS SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

House Property’. After making deduction under section 24(1) of the Act, the same was assessed at Rs. 38,11,150/-. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 20,37,012/- was considered under the head “Income from Other Sources” and was assessed accordingly without considering any deduction u/s 57 of the Act. No income was assessed under the head Profits & Gains

DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBIENCE ADVERTISING P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

House Property’. After making deduction under section 24(1) of the Act, the same was assessed at Rs. 38,11,150/-. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 20,37,012/- was considered under the head “Income from Other Sources” and was assessed accordingly without considering any deduction u/s 57 of the Act. No income was assessed under the head Profits & Gains

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

house property at Kolkata was\nvalued Rs 11,55,19,784/- by stamp value authorities.The valuation report\nclearly showed that the property was old since it was purchased in 1996\nand heavy repairs were needed.The assessee proposed to make a distress\nsale at lesser value of Rs 7 cr. to one Deepak Builder P.Ltd.The property\nconsisted of 32 flats. Copy

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

43D under the head 'Income from business and profession'. Section 11(1) starts with "subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63……..". It means that sections 60 to 63 would have overriding effect if there is a conflict between sections 11 to 13 and sections 60 to 63. However, the application under section II is not made subject

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

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house property at Kolkata was\nvalued Rs 11,55,19,784/- by stamp value authorities.The valuation report\nclearly showed that the property was old since it was purchased in 1996\nand heavy repairs were needed.The assessee proposed to make a distress\nsale at lesser value of Rs 7 cr. to one Deepak Builder P.Ltd.The property\nconsisted of 32 flats. Copy

BEAMS RESEARCH COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(3) (CURRENT JURIDICTION CIRCLE-4(1)(1)), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Ito-12(1)(3), Mumbai [Current Jurisdiction Circle Beams Research Company Pvt. 4(1)(1), Mumbai) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Plot No. 674, Beams Hospital, Vs. 16Th Cross Road, Khar West, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400052 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb4683P Assessee By : Mr. Snehal Shah Revenue By : Shri. Ashok Ambastha Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

section 30 – 43D of the act. This resulted into denial of the deduction of the expenditure to the assessee and depreciation on equipments. The income from house property

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2),

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

property and rights of the company; (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

ACIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

property and rights of the company; (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

43D of the Act and the Assessing Officer has applied his mind while completing the re-assessment accordingly. Therefore, the assessee submitted that the order is not erroneous merely because the addition for disallowance / additions made during original assessments are not considered. 8. The CIT, after considering the submissions of the assessee held that – “The matter has been given

TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

43D of the Act and the Assessing Officer has applied his mind while completing the re-assessment accordingly. Therefore, the assessee submitted that the order is not erroneous merely because the addition for disallowance / additions made during original assessments are not considered. 8. The CIT, after considering the submissions of the assessee held that – “The matter has been given

WEST GUJARAT EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

house property. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC) has considered the theory of real income. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue as under:- “37. The point to be noted is that the Income-tax Act is a tax on "real income", i.e., the profits arrived

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. WEST GUJARAT EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

house property. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC) has considered the theory of real income. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue as under:- “37. The point to be noted is that the Income-tax Act is a tax on "real income", i.e., the profits arrived

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

House, Vs. 5th Floor, J.N. Heredia Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi, A.R Revenue by : Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R. 2 M/s. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Date of Hearing : 25/26 . 05 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement

DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

House, Vs. 5th Floor, J.N. Heredia Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi, A.R Revenue by : Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R. 2 M/s. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Date of Hearing : 25/26 . 05 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

House, Vs. 5th Floor, J.N. Heredia Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi, A.R Revenue by : Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R. 2 M/s. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Date of Hearing : 25/26 . 05 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement