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

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision for standard

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

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

173; Escorts Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1) (2007 ITAT Delhi) /15 SOT 3681: Sunita Devi vs. Circle 11(1) (2007 ITAT Delhi) /15 SOT 3681: Sunita Devi vs. Circle 11(1) (2007 ITAT Delhi) /15 SOT 3681: Sunita Devi vs. ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

173; Escorts Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1) (2007 ITAT Delhi) /15 SOT 3681: Sunita Devi vs. Circle 11(1) (2007 ITAT Delhi) /15 SOT 3681: Sunita Devi vs. Circle 11(1) (2007 ITAT Delhi) /15 SOT 3681: Sunita Devi vs. ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

173 days as against 178 days determined by the Assessing Officer, meaning thereby, the period of stay was less than 182 days, therefore, in view of the terms of section 6(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanation (b) his status was non-resident, therefore, the global income cannot be taxed in India. We, 53 Mr. Binod Kumar

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

173 taxmann.com 366], where the Tribunal, after an exhaustive survey of arguments regarding voluntariness, statutory compulsion, and legislative intent, concluded that CSR contributions to approved institutions under section 80G continue to enjoy deductibility, subject of course to satisfaction of the statutory conditions. The Tribunal eloquently explained: 18 ICICI Securities Limited  The assessee during the year disallowed

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT - 10 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

173/- and recoveries from suppliers / contractors ₹.1,58,61,059/- and confirmed the balance. 31. Before us, the counsel reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 32. The nature of income is already mentioned elsewhere. The assessee has reduced the cost of construction in respect of the above

ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CHEMICON ENGINEERING CONSULTANT PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

1)(d) of the Act dated 22-03-2016 wherein the DDIT had stated that none of these companies were traceable at their given addresses and that all the sixteen (16) shareholders belonged to entry operators. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee painstakingly took us through the contents of the report and argued that

CHEMICON ENGINEERING CONSULTANT PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 3 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

1)(d) of the Act dated 22-03-2016 wherein the DDIT had stated that none of these companies were traceable at their given addresses and that all the sixteen (16) shareholders belonged to entry operators. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee painstakingly took us through the contents of the report and argued that

GLITCH MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

173 taxmann.com 366. He submitted that, the\ndecision relied by the Ld.DR has been distinguished by observing\nas under :\n“5. We heard the parties and perused the material on records. The\nassessee during the year disallowed a sum of Rs.33,85,00,000 under\nsection 37 of the Act towards the CSR Spend in compliance with section\n135

AAKASH UNIVERSAL LIMITED ( MERGED ENTITY RAJKIRAN TEXTILES PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed

173 (SC) the\nHon'ble Supreme Court has\nobserved as under:\n“Where in course of appellate\nproceedings, High Court set\naside addition made by AO\nunder section 68 in respect of\nshare application money by\nholding that identity of\nshare applicants was\nclearly revealed but\nAssessing Officer did not\nconduct any further\nenquiry except resting his\nconclusions

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

173 STPI The Orion - STPI 360,673,260 28.5% 180,343 180,343 Bldg A - STPI 287,642,678 22.7% 143,826 143,826 Non STPI 515,803,002 40.7% 257,910 257,910 Total 1,267,541,778 100.0% 633,792 375,882 25. We accordingly, remand the issue back to Assessing Officer with a direction to consider

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

68,66,057/- is allowed in respect of amounts similarly treated as capital ITA No.1073/Del/2015 & ITA No.1158/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2010-2011 expenditure in earlier years. Though Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decided the issue in the favour of the assessee, the department is contesting this issue further. Accordingly, net addition of Rs.85,56,12,985/- is proposed