VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income- tax under the head 'Capital gains", and shall he deemed to be the income of the previous year in which

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

68,12,549 USD one million two hundred fifty nine thousand four hundred 5. Total payable forty five only And Rupees five crore sixty eight lakh twelve thousand five hundred forty nine only 21. Schedule–1(A) specified the goods / equipment to be supplied from abroad; Schedule–1(B) specified the goods / equipments to be supplied from employer‟s country

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

5 per cent instead of 20 per cent in a case where some benefit in the shape of accommodation in a hotel was given which is not owned by assessee. In other words, it can be said that wherever specific value/cost, which can be directly arrived or imputed, then such value can be taken as the amount of fringe benefit

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

5 per cent instead of 20 per cent in a case where some benefit in the shape of accommodation in a hotel was given which is not owned by assessee. In other words, it can be said that wherever specific value/cost, which can be directly arrived or imputed, then such value can be taken as the amount of fringe benefit

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

5 per cent instead of 20 per cent in a case where some benefit in the shape of accommodation in a hotel was given which is not owned by assessee. In other words, it can be said that wherever specific value/cost, which can be directly arrived or imputed, then such value can be taken as the amount of fringe benefit

HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

1)(5), Mumbai – ITA No.5225/Mum/2017 & ITA No. 4730/Mum/2016 – A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13 38 ITO, Ward 23(1)(5), Mumbai Vs. Harshvardhan Constructions – ITA No. 5912/Mum/2017, ITA No. 5523/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 5913/Mum/2017 A.Y 2011-12, A.Y 2012-13 & A.Y 2013-14 (f) in a case where a residential unit in the housing project is allotted to a person being

ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

1)(5), Mumbai – ITA No.5225/Mum/2017 & ITA No. 4730/Mum/2016 – A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13 38 ITO, Ward 23(1)(5), Mumbai Vs. Harshvardhan Constructions – ITA No. 5912/Mum/2017, ITA No. 5523/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 5913/Mum/2017 A.Y 2011-12, A.Y 2012-13 & A.Y 2013-14 (f) in a case where a residential unit in the housing project is allotted to a person being

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section. Further what is required to be 6 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 disallowed is the portion of the expenditure which is considered to be excessive or unreasonable

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section. Further what is required to be 6 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 disallowed is the portion of the expenditure which is considered to be excessive or unreasonable

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section. Further what is required to be 6 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 disallowed is the portion of the expenditure which is considered to be excessive or unreasonable

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. 2. Ground No. 2 – Additions under section 68 of the Act – INR 7,959,683,862 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making additions of INR 7,959,683,862 under section 68

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

5. Excess grant of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Rs.12.23 crores 5.1 Your goodself in the show cause notice has made an observation that in the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia), Bank has classified some branches as rural branches which are not rural ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 branches as per census

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

5. Thereafter, the books of account of the assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer and he resorted to best 29 Navnidhi Steel & Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. judgment assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order mentioned some comparable cases and was of the view that the case of the assessee

DUCK CREEK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

68,05,543 without even any mentioning the clause of section 143(1) wherein the disallowance is alleged to fall while the Appellant contends that the disallowance is outside the scope of that section. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in giving overriding effect to the procedural provision of section 143(1) disregarding the substantive

ASHTVINAYAKA CONSTRUCTION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. JCIT CIR 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

1 5 allowable and accordingly direct the AO to allow claim of retention money of Rs.2,12,22,495/-. Accordingly, this ground of assessee is allowed. 13. The issue raised in ground no.3 is against the confirmation of disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs. 16,86,094/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 14. We have heard

DCIT CIR 28(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASHTAVINAYAKA CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

1 5 allowable and accordingly direct the AO to allow claim of retention money of Rs.2,12,22,495/-. Accordingly, this ground of assessee is allowed. 13. The issue raised in ground no.3 is against the confirmation of disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs. 16,86,094/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 14. We have heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

5. Depreciation on leased assets of ₹18,72,80,782 5.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the appellant’s claim in respect of deprecation of ₹18,72,80,782/- on leased assets.” 51. Brief facts are that the assessee claimed that during the course of business it has entered into

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

5. Assuming without admitting that sub-clause ii) of clause (a) of f clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case