KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,04,816/- by invoking provision of Section 14A of the 1961 Act, the assessee carried the matter further in appeal before the tribunal and it was submitted at the outset by learned counsel for the assessee that impugned assessment year under consideration is AY 2007-08 which is prior to assessment year 2008-09 , from where onwards Rule

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2) , MUMBAI

68 relates to CGST Act,\npayment of service tax.\n2017\nSub-section (1) thereof\nstipulates that every\nperson, providing\ntaxable service to any\nperson, shall pay\nservice tax at the rate\nspecified in section 66B\nof Finance Act 2012 in\n(1) Every deposit made\ntowards tax, interest,\npenalty, fee or any\nother amount by a\nperson

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 3(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

145A of the Act or any other provisions of the Act. For instance, Section 50CA is a deeming provision which enables replacement of consideration with 'fair market value' where the amount of consideration is less than the fair market value determined in a prescribed manner.\n16. Thus, in our view adding GST component to the deemed income which

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INT. TAXATION)RANGE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 4 of the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

145A of the Act or any other provisions of the\nAct. For instance, Section 50CA is a deeming provision which enables\nreplacement of consideration with 'fair market value' where the amount of\nconsideration is less than the fair market value determined in a prescribed\nmanner. 16. Thus, in our view adding GST component to the deemed\nincome which

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

145A, on account of cenvat credit to the closing stock" 4. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground, which may be necessary” I.T.A. No.3384/Mum/2014

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

145A, on account of cenvat credit to the closing stock" 4. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground, which may be necessary” I.T.A. No.3384/Mum/2014

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

145A, on account of cenvat credit to the closing stock" 4. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground, which may be necessary” I.T.A. No.3384/Mum/2014

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

145A, on account of cenvat credit to the closing stock" 4. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground, which may be necessary” I.T.A. No.3384/Mum/2014

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

145A, on account of cenvat credit to the closing stock" 4. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground, which may be necessary” I.T.A. No.3384/Mum/2014

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

68 relates to payment of\nservice tax. Sub-section (1)\nthereof stipulates that every\nperson, providing taxable\nservice to any person, shall pay\nservice tax at the rate specified\nin section 66B of Finance Act\n2012 in such manner, and\nwithin such period, as may be\nprescribed. Notwithstanding\nanything contained in sub-\nsection (1), in respect of such

SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,175 as assessable for the assessment year 2001-02. Referring to the reports filed by the CIT under section 245D(3) of the Act and under Rule 9 of the Settlement Commission Rules, they identified a list of 35 items which required further consideration. They did not adjudicate any of the aforesaid 35 items but directed the Assessing

SEADRILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 relates to\npayment of service tax.\nSub-section (1) thereof\nstipulates that every\nperson,\nproviding\ntaxable service to any\nperson, shall pay service\ntax at the rate specified\nin section 66B\nof\nFinance Act 2012 in\nsuch manner, and within\nsuch period, as may be\nprescribed.\nNotwithstanding\nanything contained in\nsub-section (1), in\nrespect

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT) TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

145A Section of the Act or any other provisions of the Act. For instance, is a deeming provision which enables replacement of consideration with 'fair market value' where the amount of consideration is less than the fair market value determined in a prescribed manner. 16. Thus, in our view adding GST component to the deemed income which

INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. CYMBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito-12(1)(4) M/S Cymbal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145A, B-204, Kesar Baug, L.T. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Borivali (East), Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400092. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaecc7675C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri V. Chandrasekhar (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

145A, B-204, Kesar Baug, L.T. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Borivali (East), Road, Church gate, Mumbai-400092. Vs. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAECC7675C Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR) Respondent by : Shri V. Chandrasekhar (AR) Date of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.07.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

68 of erstwhile Service Tax\nlaw and Section 49 of CGST Act, the comparison is given herein\nbelow.\nXX\nXX\n20.\nOn perusal of the comparison of the relevant provision of\nservice tax law and GST law it can be seen that both are\nindirect taxes and is recovered by the service provider on\nbehalf of assessee

GUJARAT GLASS P. LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS GUJARAT GLASS P. LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aabcg0093R V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 03.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

68,708/- u/s. 36(1)(li.i) of the Act as the average cost of borrowing of @5.16% on the alleged ground that borrowed funds were used for investment in the shares of the subsidiary companies for acquiring controlling its interest and such investment is not for business purpose. The case of àssessee on the other hand is that the shares

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

145A has to be made both to tha opening stock and closing stock. This issue therefore in our view requires fresh exarnination. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A), and restore the matter to or passing a fresh order after allowing opportunity of hearing to assessee.” 34. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision

M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

145A has to be made both to tha opening stock and closing stock. This issue therefore in our view requires fresh exarnination. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A), and restore the matter to or passing a fresh order after allowing opportunity of hearing to assessee.” 34. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision

ACIT CIR. - 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

145A has to be made both to tha opening stock and closing stock. This issue therefore in our view requires fresh exarnination. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A), and restore the matter to or passing a fresh order after allowing opportunity of hearing to assessee.” 34. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision