ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 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 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

68 of the 1961 Act. 7.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the additions as were made by the AO vide assessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act filed first appeal with learned CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed fresh confirmations from the said parties Chikhloli

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

251 of the Act and disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee therein instead of restricting the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income. The ITAT set aside the order of the AO as well as CIT(A). The High Court upheld the order of the ITAT and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

251 of the Act\nand disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee therein instead of\nrestricting the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income. The\nITAT set aside the order of the AO as well as CIT(A). The High Court upheld the order\nof the ITAT and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue

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) wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as under:- ‘’A. Evolution of the Hutchison structure and the Transaction 3. The Hutchison Group, Hong Kong (HK) first invested into the telecom business in India in 1992 when the said Group invested in an Indian joint venture vehicle by the name Hutchison Max Telecom Limited (HMTL) - later renamed

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

1), Coimbatore\nTAX CASE (APPEAL) NO.\n190 OF 2014\nIT : Books of account cannot be rejected\nand best judgment assessment cannot be\ndone in a case where accounts have been\naudited under section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8.\nIn the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

1) is carried out resulting into search and seizure, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice to the assessee to furnish returns for each assessment year falling within the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search or requisition was made. Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

1) is carried out resulting into search and seizure, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice to the assessee to furnish returns for each assessment year falling within the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search or requisition was made. Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

1) is carried out resulting into search and seizure, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice to the assessee to furnish returns for each assessment year falling within the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search or requisition was made. Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer

NAV CONSEC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

1,19,000 shares with face value of Rs.10/- at a premium of Rs.5400/- and, therefore, the allotment of shares by the appellant to Smt. Vathsala Ranganathan was in settlement of the pre-existing liability of the assessee company to Smt. Vathsala Ranganathan. 11. According to the assessee, shares were allotted against the liability that had accrued to the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 68 was to be deleted-Held, yes [Paras 7, 7.2 and 9] [In favour of assessee). Ground of Appeal 2 On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO erred in concluding that cash sales has increased drastically upto 10 times as compared to the previous year without appreciating the facts

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

251\n63,307,993\n10,946,141,232\n11,009,449,225\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from the business of providing long time finance for\nconstruction or purchase of houses for residential purposes.\na) Interest on deposits\nb) Interest

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from