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

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

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

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

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

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

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

losses is correctly allowed by the Ld. AO. ITA Nos. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 Teleperformance Global Services, Mumbai. 20.3 Difference in closing WDV for AY 2012-13 and opening WDV for AY 2013-14 in case of Goodwill and Furniture & fixtures balance 20.3.1 In this regard, the difference in WDV of the assets as pointed out by your goodself is mainly

INTERGRATOR CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

set off of loss of Rs 47,68,944/- made by the AO\nwas without providing copy of statement of Shri Arun Shah\nrelied upon by him and without providing an opportunity to\ncross-examine Arun Shah despite repeated requests, which is\nagainst the principles of natural justice. It was argued the\naddition of Rs 95,379/- made

LAURELS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

set off of loss of Rs 1,93,37,131/-\nmade by the AO was without providing copy of statement of\nShri Arun Shah relied upon by him and without providing an\nopportunity to cross-examine Arun Shah despite repeated\nrequests, which is against the principles of natural justice. It\nwas argued the addition of Rs 3,86,743/- made

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 ()

set off of correct amount of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available

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 ()

set off of correct amount of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available

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 ()

set off of correct amount of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

set off of losses resulted in underassessment of income by Rs.5,79,56,973/- with a consequent short levy of tax of Rs. 1,88,04,139/- excluding interest u/s 234B of the I.T. Act, if any. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, I have reasons to believe that income

LAXMIPATI IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

set off of loss also cannot be granted to the assessee because the addition has been made under section 69C of the act. He further stated that the assessee cannot be given the benefit of the applicability of the gross profit only for the simple reason that assessing officer has categorically noted that assessee has failed to show that there

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view taken by the ld. Assessing Officer treating it as speculative loss for which set