25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

House Property, Profit and Gains of business or profession, or capital gain) is to be computed and brought to charge under section 56 under the head “Income from Other sources”. In other words, it can be said that the residuary head of income can be resorted to only if none of the specific head is applicable to the income

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

Property Act does not prohibit the gift by the companies and (3) Further, the Income-tax Act itself recognizes such transactions under the provisions of section 56(2) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the transactions entered into by the assessee is in order and cannot be challenged. b. Further, coming to the provisions of section

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

Property Act permits a company to be a transferor (donor). In DP World (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (140 ITD 694) (Mum) the coordinate bench of Tribunal while considering the taxability of the Gift held that when, the assessee received three residential flats by way of gift of shares of the concerned housing society from its sister concern and in absence

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

property and (donor). In DP World (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (140 ITD 694) (Mum) the coordinate bench of Tribunal while considering the taxability of the Gift held that when, the assessee received three residential flats by way of gift of shares of the concerned housing society from its sister concern and in absence of any specific provision taxing a gift

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

House Property, Profit and Gains of business of profession, or capital gain) is to be computed and brought to charge under section 56 under the head “Income from Other sources”. In other words, it can be said that the residuary head of income can be restored to only if none of the specific head is applicable to the income

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

House Property, Profit and Gains of business of profession, or capital gain) is to be computed and brought to charge under section 56 under the head “Income from Other sources”. In other words, it can be said that the residuary head of income can be restored to only if none of the specific head is applicable to the income

DY CIT. CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S TRAVECOM GLOBAL P. LTD., BHAYANDER

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

houses), detailed explanation and factors considered to arrive at the discounting factor 15 percent. General Rejection of DCF 2. The Assessing officer has erred in rejecting the DCF method Method adopted by assessee as its beyond the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer as mentioned in Paragraph 5 of Page 7 of Assessment order. Facts of the case: 1. The assessee filed

TATVA GLOABAL ENVIRONMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumartatva Global Environment Ltd Vs Ito-9(3)(3), (Now Known As Tatva Global Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Environment Pvt Ltd) Mumbai Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt Dcit, Cent.Cir.6(3), Vs Tatva Global Environment Ltd Mumbai (Now Known As Tatva Global Environment Pvt Ltd) Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt

House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 PAN : AAICS1718A APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Assessee by Shri Kirit Kamdar & Avin Jain AR’s Revenue by Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr DR Date of hearing 30-09-2019 Date of pronouncement 01-11-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Member: 1. These cross appeals

JAIDEV R. SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 6(3) EARSTWHILE ACIT - CC-38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shuklajaidev R. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aalps9283N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Rajnikant D. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Uniphos House, 11Th Road, Mumbai. Vs. Cd Marg, Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aalps9281Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Vikram R. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaops8597C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) फनाभ/ Sandra R. Shroff, Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Ahhps2731G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

viia) of the Act. Ultimately, for taxing the said transactions, AO invoked the provisions of section 45(1) r.w.s 48 of the Act and worked out the taxable long term capital gains. For the computation of gains, cost of the shares is taken as „nil‟ and market value of the shares is taken at Rs. 87,44,49,700/-. Eventually

PANKAJ DHANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-22(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

housing society Ltd, MM Joshi Marg, Apollo Mill\ncompound, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 11 for Rs. 130,500,000/-\nfrom Agies Realtors and developers private limited [ Seller] on\n23 June 2016. Assessee paid a further sum of Rs. 9,006,600 as\nStamp duty and Rs. 30,000 as registration fees. However, the\nstamp duty value of the above property

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the\nHon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case\nMaxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court\nin the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A\nof the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

house property chargeable under section 22. [Explanation. - For the purposes of this section an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

house property chargeable under section 22. [Explanation. - For the purposes of this section an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

house property chargeable under section 22. [Explanation. - For the purposes of this section an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

AILA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Aila Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 8F/95, Sonawala Building, Sleater Road, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 007. Pan: Aakca 5414B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 12(1)-1, Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

House Property and Rs. 8614400/- u/s. 69 of the Act under the Head Income from Other Sources. The Assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. The assessee is further aggrieved with this order of Ld. CIT (A), preferred the present

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

property. \nXV. Additional claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo \nmoto disallowance made during the course of the assessment \nproceedings. \nXVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). \nXVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic \ntransactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). \nXVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions. \nXIX. Increasing the book profit computed u/s.115JB