WIND WORLD INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad- in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad- in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad- in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

GOLDMOHUR DESIGN AND APPAREL PARK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX - 7, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the Pr. CIT was of the view that the term ―any other business or commercial rights of similar nature‖ was to be construed by applying the rule of nosticur a sociis, as per which the words used in the statute would derive their meaning from the surrounding words and were to be given

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 19. Inevitable conclusion is that High Court has wrongly applied Adani Exports case (supra) which has no application to the case on the facts in view of the conceptual difference between section 143(1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 24 Navnidhi Steel & Engg

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

V HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD ( FORMELRY TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

reassessment are under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and they are on a completely different footing and, therefore, do not merit consideration for the purposes of this case. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed by Section 153 of the Act for completion of proceedings, we have been told that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

section 32(1)(ii), depreciation is not allowable.\n26. Before examining whether non-compete fee can be considered to be\nan intangible asset so as to entitle the assessee to claim depreciation\non it, it is necessary, at the outset, to address the issue of genuineness\nof payment of non-compete fee and necessity to make such payment

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

32 or sub-section (3) of section 32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section