MSC CREWING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodmsc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 8(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 .... Respondent Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 10(2)(2) R.No.209,Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 Vs. Msc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri N.K.Chand Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11 Order

vi) and Section 47 (vid) of the Act without explaining how these provisions are applicable; c) drawing erroneous analogy from the provision of Section 56 (viia) and 56(viib) of the Act without considering the applicability of the provisions of these Section in case of Appellant; d) considering share premium as a income taxable under

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

vi) CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Share Brokers (P) Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) The Ld. A.R. finally prayed before the Bench that in view of these foregoing arguments and the ratio laid down by various courts the addition of Rs.90 crores as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

vi) Copy of FIRC. (vii) Copy of bank statements. (viii) Copy of Form 2 filed with ROC. 8.3 Thus, the assessee before AO provided all possible information which was humanly possible in the matter to discharge primary onus cast by s. 68. The moneys have undisputedly come through banking channels, approvals by the highest investment board i.e. FIPB has been

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

2)(vi), the provisions of section 68 and the provisions of section 28(iv) has not been invoked. 16. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated his stand taken 24

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

vi) was inserted w.e.f. 1 April 2007 to tax the receipt of any sum of money exceeding Rs.50,000 without consideration by any individual or HUF subject to certain exclusions. sub section 2 clause (vii) was inserted w.e.f. 1 October 2009 to tax the receipt of money or any property whose value exceeds Rs. 50,000 without consideration

DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RANKIN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

24, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 23.08.2019 for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: - 2 M/s. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the section 56(2)(viib) is applicable in the year

ITO (IT)- 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

2. In question (a) the revenue contends that the Satellite Space Fees and transponder c Fees and transponder charges paid by the assessee were in the harges paid by the assessee were in the nature of royalty payments. From the perusal of the impugned nature of royalty payments. From the perusal of the impugned nature of royalty payments. From

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

24,82,493/- Land (FSI) available for out of the above out of the above 13,966 6,28,476/ 6,28,476/- areas) and its FMV as on 01.04.1981 areas) and its FMV as on 01.04.1981 TDR available (as per DCR 1991) TDR available (as per DCR 1991) 51,067 NIL Total Area available for development Total Area available

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

24,82,493/- Land (FSI) available for out of the above out of the above 13,966 6,28,476/ 6,28,476/- areas) and its FMV as on 01.04.1981 areas) and its FMV as on 01.04.1981 TDR available (as per DCR 1991) TDR available (as per DCR 1991) 51,067 NIL Total Area available for development Total Area available

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

24,82,493/- Land (FSI) available for out of the above out of the above 13,966 6,28,476/ 6,28,476/- areas) and its FMV as on 01.04.1981 areas) and its FMV as on 01.04.1981 TDR available (as per DCR 1991) TDR available (as per DCR 1991) 51,067 NIL Total Area available for development Total Area available

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

ITO 5 (2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MILLIONAIRE COMMODIITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2012-13 The Ito-5(2)(3), M/S.Millionaire Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai A-32, Haji Allarakha Building, Vs. 3Rd , 9Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai [Pan : Aahcm3086G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

vi) the Legislature has not stated that "any capital gains" will be covered under the word income. On the contrary, the Legislature has advisedly stated that only capital gains which are chargeable under Section 45 of the Act could he treated as income. In other words, capital gains not chargeable to tax under section 45 fall outside

ACIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

VI of the Act before setting off any deductions from the total income as provided under Chapter VIA of from the total income as provided under Chapter VIA of from the total income as provided under Chapter VIA of the Act. 37. Section 71 provides set off of losses from one head 37. Section 71 provides

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

VI “Investments” by showing the value at Rs.100/- and the corresponding credit entries were made in the capital reserve by showing the same as gift received. The AO valued the same at Rs.49.02 crores and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 56 of the Act on the ground that the assessee became richer