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

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in granting interest 31 ITA No. 4322/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) C.O. NO. 287& 288/MUM/2017 M/s. Raymond Limited under section 244A on excess credit for tax deducted at source claimed during the assessment proceedings from the date on which the TDS Certificates were furnished till

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in granting interest 31 ITA No. 4322/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) C.O. NO. 287& 288/MUM/2017 M/s. Raymond Limited under section 244A on excess credit for tax deducted at source claimed during the assessment proceedings from the date on which the TDS Certificates were furnished till

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

5 years and interest / discount, etc., income on temporary deployment of funds have been held in favour of the assessee by holding the same to be eligible in computing the profit eligible for deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii). However, issue relating to interest income from housing finance for non-residential purposes is held against the assessee and not eligible

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBER ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

80B(10)(f) of the I T Act as more than one residential units have been sold to spouse/relative of the owner. vii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld(CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not complied with essential condition of completion of project

ASST CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI vs. OBEROI REALITY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

property Development Business and belongs to Oberoi Groups, wherein search & seizure action carried out on 19.07.2007. Consequently, assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 24.12.2009 determining the income of Rs. 6,00,40,620/-. While framing assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed deduction u/s 80-IB (10). However, the addition made by AO were deleted

ASST CIT CIR 23, MUMBAI vs. OBEROI REALITY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cir.23, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 002 ... Appellant

sections of Chapter VI-A are to be individually computed and such aggregate of deductions is liable to be restricted to the amount of gross total income prescribed in Sec. 80B(5) of the Act. In fact, the point made out by the Revenue that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act is allowable to the extent of ‘profits

ABU DHABI COMMERCIAL BANK PJSC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc Dcit (International Taxation)- Wework India Management Private 1(1)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No. 517, Limited Vs. 2Nd Floor, Express Towers, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ranath Goenka Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

house property 3. Profits and gains of business and profession 4. Capital gain 5. Income from other sources 12. Sections 15 to 59 provide the mode and manner of computation of income under each of the aforesaid heads of income. Once income under different heads are computed, Chapter VI and VI-A get triggered. While Chapter VI provides for aggregation

ACIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Purvankara Projects Room No. 906, Vs. Ltd., 130/1, Ulsoor Road, Pratisthabhavan, 10Th Floor, Bangalore-560042 Old Cgo Building Annexe, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacp2550R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit(Cc)-1(2), Room No. M/S Purvankara Projects 906, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg. Vs. Ltd., 130/1, Ulsoor Road, Annex Bldg., M.K. Road, Bangalore-560042 Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaacp2550R Appellant Respondent

80B(5), r.w.s. 80A(1), the deduction u/s 80IB(10) shall be allowed from its gross total income arrived at after adjusting the losses of other units against the profits derived from an “industrial undertaking”, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Synco Industries Ltd. (2008) 168 Taxman 224 (SC). 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

5 to the full value of consideration of the undertaking at `90. The figures from Table B will reflect the calculation of capital gain as under : - Capital gain on transfer of `Undertaking’ (All assets minus All liabilities) is `95 (`95 minus `0), that is Full value of consideration received or accruing (All assets minus All liabilities) as a result

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry