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

DEEPAK SOGANL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3163/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Deepak Sogani Dcit-24(1), Pratyaksha बनाम/ A-704, Beverly Park-I Kar Bhawan, Bandra V. Dlf City-2 , Near City Kurla Complex, Centre Mall, M G Road, Bandra(East), Mumbai- Gurgaon, Haryana-122022 400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Amfps5138L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

loss of Rs.55,14,312 incurred by the appellant in F&O/Derivatives segment of stock market ought to have been set off against short term profit of Rs.48,39,634 made by the appellant in shares in cash market for the year in appeal or against income from any other source earned by the appellant for the year

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)

losses of earlier years for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) and allow additional deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) and reduce the total income under normal provisions of the Act accordingly. 2.1 Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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, wherein it was stated that the appellant has wrongly shown interest earned on fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 2,24,06,786/- as business income instead of income from other source. Further, it was contended that the appellant had wrongly claimed set off of brought forward business loss

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

losses are determined in the\nearlier returns, therefore it is also the part of the original\ncomputation and in the reassessment proceedings also if the correct\ncomputation of the reassessment, is made, the assessee is to be\ngranted the benefit of set

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

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) decided

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

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) decided

RAJU MANILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

set-off the losses as per return of income instead of assessed losses as per assessment order of concerned year and filed revised computation to that effect. The Assessing Officer without disposing of the objections raised by the assessee proceeded to complete the reassessment

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

losses of earlier years\nand the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. The learned ACIT\nbe directed to consider the \"total income\" before setting off any brought forward\nlosses of earlier years for the purpose of computing deduction u/s.36(1)(viia)\nand allow additional deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) and reduce the total income\nunder normal provisions

DCIT (IT) - 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO INSTITUTIONEEL EMERGING MARKETS FONDS , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

loss cannot be set off against the income of the cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee". subsequent year is not binding on the assessee". 8. In CIT vs. Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 8. In CIT vs. Western India Oil Distributing

DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO QI INSTITUTIONAL EMERGING MARKETS ENHANCED INDEX EQUITIES FUND, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

loss cannot be set off against the income of the cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee". subsequent year is not binding on the assessee". 8. In CIT vs. Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 8. In CIT vs. Western India Oil Distributing

ROBERT MCLEAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-1(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhrobert Mclean Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Central 9, Rowdon Street, Circle-1(2) Udyanchal Building, Flat 9Th Floor, Pratistha No. 20, 5Th Floor, Bhavan, New Marine Kolkata – 700 017 Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcr5764N Appellant .. Respondent

setting off of brought forward losses of earlier years of Rs.2,89,561/-: ITA No.5007/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 7 Robert Mclean Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT,CC-1(2) 7. The ld. CIT(A) has not allowed this ground of appeal of the assessee holding that the issue of addition of Rs.2,89,561/- was not emanating from the reassessment

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

set off of brought forward long term capital loss with long term capital gain, the ld. AO had not made any reference to any seized material found during the course of search to justify the said addition. Admittedly, the assessment for A.Y.2012-13 being unabated assessment, there cannot be any disturbance to the originally concluded assessment / appellate proceeding unless there

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)

reassessment has been done merely on the basis of change of opinion. 2.The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that deduction under Section 80IA has been correctly allowed in the assessment order with reference to the profits of 67.5 MW Unit without considering the unabsorbed depreciation of that Unit for earlier assessment years, since such unabsorbed depreciation

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

set-off of other losses the assessed income of the assessee would be the same as in the original assessment order. Thereby there is no loss of revenue to call the original order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. A copy of draft computation constructed to depict the scenario wherein the contention of the assessee is not accepted and reassessment

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

set off loss from AY 2012-13) Total Income 19,46,276/ 19,46,276/- The discussion Relevant Relevant to the addition for lease hold expenses to the addition for lease hold expenses in the 4. assessment order is also reproduced as under order is also reproduced as under for ready reference reference: “4.1 From the accounts of the assessee

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

set off loss from AY 2012-13) Total Income 19,46,276/ 19,46,276/- The discussion Relevant Relevant to the addition for lease hold expenses to the addition for lease hold expenses in the 4. assessment order is also reproduced as under order is also reproduced as under for ready reference reference: “4.1 From the accounts of the assessee

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

set off loss from AY 2012-13) Total Income 19,46,276/ 19,46,276/- The discussion Relevant Relevant to the addition for lease hold expenses to the addition for lease hold expenses in the 4. assessment order is also reproduced as under order is also reproduced as under for ready reference reference: “4.1 From the accounts of the assessee

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

set off loss from AY 2012-13) Total Income 19,46,276/ 19,46,276/- The discussion Relevant Relevant to the addition for lease hold expenses to the addition for lease hold expenses in the 4. assessment order is also reproduced as under order is also reproduced as under for ready reference reference: “4.1 From the accounts of the assessee