M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

carry forward foreign tax credit of Rs. 182.64 crore ought to be set off against the tax payable for the year since it is only the reduced losses form AY 2012-13 i.e., the losses as reduced by foreign income which has been set off against the income for the current year and Appellant Bank has paid

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

carry forward of capital losses including those of previous years. All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any ground of appeal, at or prior to hearing of the appeal as may be required to enable the Hon'ble Appellate Authority to decide

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS ) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

carry forward of capital losses including those of previous years. All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any ground of appeal, at or prior to hearing of the appeal as may be required to enable the Hon'ble Appellate Authority to decide

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , KALYAN vs. M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

reassessment order the AO held that the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act is to be worked out after set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. In this regard the AO has relied on the assessment order for assessment year 2008-09 and mentioned that business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years were fully

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

loss was first computed and set off against any other heads of income except income under the head business or profession. The AO observed that the assessee company had carried forward „unabsorbed depreciation‟ of AY 1998-99 of Rs. 28,08,998/- , AY 1999-00 of Rs. 72,46,077/- and AY 2000-01 amounting

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

carry forward foreign tax credit of Rs.182.64 crore ought to be set off against the tax payable for the year since it is only the reduced losses form AY 2012-13 i.e., the losses as reduced by foreign income which has been set off against the income for the current year and Appellant Bank has paid tax on the balance

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

In the result appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and appeals filed by the AO

carry forward and set off of such loss relating to the period prior to 2003-04 continued to govern by sec.74(1) as it stood prior to the amendment made w.e.f. 1.4.2003. In our opinion, this issue involved in the present case is more similar to the issue involved in the case of Govind Das and Others vs. ITO (supra

M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and appeals filed by the AO

carry forward and set off of such loss relating to the period prior to 2003-04 continued to govern by sec.74(1) as it stood prior to the amendment made w.e.f. 1.4.2003. In our opinion, this issue involved in the present case is more similar to the issue involved in the case of Govind Das and Others vs. ITO (supra

DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.8,37,59,368/- arising from sale of equity shares. With regard to case law relied by the Ld. DR in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd., v. DCIT (supra), the issue involved in that case was whether long term capital loss incurred on which STT paid could

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassess such income. The A.O. clearly had reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and the same can be reopened under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that in the instant case since the assessment has been reopened within four years from the end of the assessment year, the proviso to section

FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargfirstsource Solutions Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner 5Th Floor, Paradigm B Of Income Tax, City-6, Mindspace, New Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Malad (West), Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 064 Pan:Aaaci 1890 N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By: Sri F. V. Irani Sri K. K. Veel, Ars Respondent By: Sri Anand Mohan,Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20-07-2016 O R D E R

loss of Rs.25,00,000/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were carried out and addition of Rs.16.49 crores was made by observing that while computing the deduction u/s 10A/10B of the Act, brought forward

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

reassessment proceedings I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 which was later upheld by learned CIT(A). It was submitted that the authorities below rightly disallowed adjustment of brought forward business losses as the same cannot be adjusted against losses of the impugned assessment year being assessed under the head „Income from other sources‟. Thus, in nut-shell the learned DR would justify the reopening

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. D.Y. PATIL SPORTS ACADEMY , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

losses and setting M/s. Dr. D.Y. Patil Sports Academy off against the subsequent years surplus is squarely covered by the decision as cited by the Ld. A.R. We have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) carefully and found that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order after following the decision of CIT vs. Institute of Banking

SMITH & NEPHEW HEALTHCARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

The appeal is hereby dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhs Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Smith & Nephew Cit(Appeals) Nfac, Healthcare P.Ltd. Mumbai. Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, 501-509B, Dynasty Vs. M.K.Road, New Marine Business Part, 5Th Floor, Lines, Mumbai 400020 Kurla, Andheri East, Mumbai 400059 Pan: Aaacs8136N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Vaidya Revenue By : Shri. Ashish Kumar Dehria Date Of Hearing : 02 . 01 . 2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17 . 01 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh: 1. Appellant, Smith & Nephew Healthcare P. Ltd. Mumbai.(‘Here In After, Referred To As The Assessee’) By Filing Aforesaid Appeal Sought To Set Aside The Impugned Order Dated 08.09.2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), In For Short Cit(A) On The Grounds Inter Alia That:-

loss as per the return of income should be allowed to be carry forward Considering income from other sources twice 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the learned AO has considered starting point at Rs 9,77,99,382 (includes income from other sources of Rs 32,00,188), and erred in separately adding the income

DCIT CENT CIR 7(1) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR BABULAL PUNAMIYA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Us Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Prescribed By Cbdt For Enabling Revenue To Prefer Appeal Before This Tribunal. This Was Vehemently Objected By The Ld. Dr By Stating That The Case Falls Under The Exception To The Said Cbdt Circular On Low Tax Effect, As In The Instant Case, The Case Was Reopened Based On Audit Objection Which Was Accepted By The Revenue. In Support Of This, The Ld. Dr Placed On Record The Copy Of The Audit Objection, Which Has Been Accepted By The Department. We Have Verified The Same & Are In Concurrence With The Argument Advanced By The Ld. Dr. Accordingly, This Is Not A Fit Case To Be Dismissed On The Ground Of Low Tax Effect. Hence The Parties Were Allowed To Represent The Issues Ground Wise.

carry forward. In view of this, the set off of brought forward of loss of Rs 66,44,338/- was sought to be withdrawn in the reopened proceedings by the ld. AO after due recording of reasons to this effect. 3.2. The assessee pleaded that the additions made in the hands of the assessee for Asst Years

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional the period for determining the additional interest payable to such interest payable to such assessee under this sub assessee under this sub-section, the period beginning from the section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional the period for determining the additional interest payable to such interest payable to such assessee under this sub assessee under this sub-section, the period beginning from the section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing