MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

e) applied to HRG. In para 5.4 at page 13, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the advance of ₹.68,07,442 was covered by section 13(2)(a). In para 6.16 at page 21, he held that the payments to HRG were excessive and, therefore, section 13(3

MMTI'S EDUCATION & RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

3,14,55,417 Educational Course Educational Course Less: Allowable expenditure incurred to earn Allowable expenditure incurred to earn 2,88,61,990 income Less: Expenses disallowed as per Less: Expenses disallowed as per 42,64,392 para 4.13 Total Income Total Income ……… 68,57,819 Rounded off u/s 288A off u/s 288A ……… 68,57,820” 6. On further appeal

MMTIS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

3,14,55,417 Educational Course Educational Course Less: Allowable expenditure incurred to earn Allowable expenditure incurred to earn 2,88,61,990 income Less: Expenses disallowed as per Less: Expenses disallowed as per 42,64,392 para 4.13 Total Income Total Income ……… 68,57,819 Rounded off u/s 288A off u/s 288A ……… 68,57,820” 6. On further appeal

MMTIS EDUCTION & RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) I(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

3,14,55,417 Educational Course Educational Course Less: Allowable expenditure incurred to earn Allowable expenditure incurred to earn 2,88,61,990 income Less: Expenses disallowed as per Less: Expenses disallowed as per 42,64,392 para 4.13 Total Income Total Income ……… 68,57,819 Rounded off u/s 288A off u/s 288A ……… 68,57,820” 6. On further appeal

R.D.TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSTT.CIT 17(3)), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

E), Mumbai vs. Jasubhai Foundation: 374 ITR 315 (Bombay) and also granted the benefit of carry forward of deficit of INR 4,15,08,853/- to the subsequent assessment years by following the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS): 264 ITR 110 (Bombay). 6. Now, both

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

e) We find that the liability in respect of work/services rendered in earlier\nyears was crystallized only on receipt of the bill in the current assessment year.\nMoreover, the method adopted by the respondent assessees has been accepted\nby the revenue for the earlier assessment year and also while accounting for\nthe income earned in respect of the work done

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

e) We find that the liability in respect of work/services rendered in earlier\nyears was crystallized only on receipt of the bill in the current assessment year.\nMoreover, the method adopted by the respondent assessees has been accepted\nby the revenue for the earlier assessment year and also while accounting for\nthe income earned in respect of the work done

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

e) We find that the liability in respect of work/services rendered in earlier\nyears was crystallized only on receipt of the bill in the current assessment year.\nMoreover, the method adopted by the respondent assessees has been accepted\nby the revenue for the earlier assessment year and also while accounting for\nthe income earned in respect of the work done

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

e) We find that the liability in respect of work/services rendered in earlier\nyears was crystallized only on receipt of the bill in the current assessment year.\nMoreover, the method adopted by the respondent assessees has been accepted\nby the revenue for the earlier assessment year and also while accounting for\nthe income earned in respect of the work done

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

e) any concern in which any of the persons referred to in clause (a), (b), (c). (cc) and (d) has a substantial interest." 18. Let us examine whether case of the revenue falls under clause (2) under section 13(1)(c) or under section 13(2). It is not disputed that the person referred to in sub-section

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

13. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. relied heavily on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and AO by submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.90.00 crores as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act after appreciating the fact that the source of money is flowing from the company in which

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, THANE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

3. Deepak Nitrite Ltd. 12.01% 12.01% 13.65% 4. Haryana Leather Chemicals Ltd. Haryana Leather Chemicals 5.50% 5.50% 5.82% 5. Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. 7.89% 7.89% 8.56% 6. Nocil Ltd. 11.59% 11.59% 13.11% 7. S I Group-India Ltd. -1.19% 1.19% -1.18% 8. Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. 8.59% 8.59% 9.40% 9. Amines & Plasticizers Ltd. Amines

ACIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LANXESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

3. Deepak Nitrite Ltd. 12.01% 12.01% 13.65% 4. Haryana Leather Chemicals Ltd. Haryana Leather Chemicals 5.50% 5.50% 5.82% 5. Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. 7.89% 7.89% 8.56% 6. Nocil Ltd. 11.59% 11.59% 13.11% 7. S I Group-India Ltd. -1.19% 1.19% -1.18% 8. Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. 8.59% 8.59% 9.40% 9. Amines & Plasticizers Ltd. Amines

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

e) In the above view Question No. A is not being entertained in\nview of the decision in Tata Chemical Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the\nquestion (A) is not entertained.\nRegarding Question B :\n(a) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the view\nof the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to hold that share\npremium is capital

LATE SHRI MOHAN RAJ CHHAJED (THROUGH LEGAL JEOR SHANTILAL CHHAJED),MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Through Legal Heir Shantilal Pali Rajasthan-306-401. Chhajed), Vs. 601, Shilpa Apartments, C.D. Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaipc 6614 N Appellant Respondent

13, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the lea On the facts and circumstances of the case, the lea On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

68 . But in the instant case before us, the AO after rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) has not applied GP Ratio to estimate income rather Section 40A(3)/40A(3A) are invoked to estimate income whose validity is to be tested by us on the threshold of statutory provisions , their interpretation by Courts and factual matrix

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

68 . But in the instant case before us, the AO after rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) has not applied GP Ratio to estimate income rather Section 40A(3)/40A(3A) are invoked to estimate income whose validity is to be tested by us on the threshold of statutory provisions , their interpretation by Courts and factual matrix

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

13. The Ld. A.R. submitted that, under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the assessee's liability is to explain the nature and sources of the money. He submitted that the assessee has explained the nature as well as sources i.e. the above said deposit was made out of its collections in the ordinary course of carrying

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

13. The Ld. A.R. submitted that, under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the assessee's liability is to explain the nature and sources of the money. He submitted that the assessee has explained the nature as well as sources i.e. the above said deposit was made out of its collections in the ordinary course of carrying