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 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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

carry forward foreign tax credit of Rs.182.64 crore ought to be set off\nagainst the tax payable for the year since it is only the reduced losses form AY\n2012-13 i.e., the losses as reduced by foreign income which has been set off\nagainst the income for the current year and Appellant Bank has paid tax on\nthe balance

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

MASHREQ COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,SONA VILLA JUSSA WALA WADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(1)(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

carried on by\nthe assessee during the year. As there is no business income,\notherwise the claim of the set off of brought forward business\nlosses is not available to the assessee.\n06.\nTherefore, assessee is in appeal before us. The only claim of the\nassessee was with respect to granting the benefit of the brought\nforward losses of earlier

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

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

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

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

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

Appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment order passed thereto are bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Ld. DR on the other hand has contended that issuing approval u/s.151 of the Act is internal communication and thus, not mandatory to obtain DIN for such internal communications. 150. We has also considered the decisions relied upon by the Assessee

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

reassessment order passed thereto are bad in\nlaw and liable to be quashed. The Ld. DR on the other hand\nhas contended that issuing approval u/s.151 of the Act is\ninternal communication and thus, not mandatory to obtain\nDIN for such internal communications.\n150. We has also considered the decisions relied upon by\nthe Assessee

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

reassessment order passed thereto are bad in\nlaw and liable to be quashed. The Ld. DR on the other hand\nhas contended that issuing approval u/s.151 of the Act is\ninternal communication and thus, not mandatory to obtain\nDIN for such internal communications.\n\n150. We has also considered the decisions relied upon by\nthe Assessee

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

reassessment order passed thereto are bad in\nlaw and liable to be quashed. The Ld. DR on the other hand\nhas contended that issuing approval u/s.151 of the Act is\ninternal communication and thus, not mandatory to obtain\nDIN for such internal communications.\n\n150. We has also considered the decisions relied upon by\nthe Assessee

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment order passed thereto are bad in\nlaw and liable to be quashed. The Ld. DR on the other hand\nhas contended that issuing approval u/s.151 of the Act is\ninternal communication and thus, not mandatory to obtain\nDIN for such internal communications.\n150. We has also considered the decisions relied upon by\nthe Assessee

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment order passed thereto are bad in\nlaw and liable to be quashed. The Ld. DR on the other hand\nhas contended that issuing approval u/s.151 of the Act is\ninternal communication and thus, not mandatory to obtain\nDIN for such internal communications.\n\n150. We has also considered the decisions relied upon by\nthe Assessee

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment order passed thereto are bad in\nlaw and liable to be quashed. The Ld. DR on the other hand\nhas contended that issuing approval u/s.151 of the Act is\ninternal communication and thus, not mandatory to obtain\nDIN for such internal communications.\n150. We has also considered the decisions relied upon by\nthe Assessee