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

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 2.7. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after insertion of Explanation

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 21, Mumbai erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 60,000/- out of professional fees. 5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 21, Mumbai erred

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 21, Mumbai erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 60,000/- out of professional fees. 5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 21, Mumbai erred

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

253/- u/s 14A of\nthe Act.\n3. Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80(IA) in respect of captive power\nplant:- Rs. 40,04,53,625/-\nThe learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the deduction u/s\n80(IA) of Rs. 40,04,53,625/-\nin respect of the captive power plant\nby relying on the orders

MAHENDRA H. SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD- 4 (1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the impugned addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of admission made by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain in his sworn statement. Though the assessee has furnished details of annual accounts of share applicants, perusal of the income tax return would show that they are declaring only minimal income. The admission

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings

ACIT CENT. CIR 3(3) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. AYM SYNTEX LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta

M/S. AYM SYNTEX LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CENT CIR-3(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta

AYM SYNTEX LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta

AYM SYNTEX LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta

ACIT- CC -3, MUMBAI vs. AYM SYNTEX LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

4. The second part of the period was between 31.09.2015, when the decision in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd., was rendered by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, and the date of filing the additional ground of appeal i.e. 17.11.2016. Thus, it was contended that there was no justification for this delay. The same group represented by the same

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

4. The second part of the period was between 31.09.2015, when the decision in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd., was rendered by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, and the date of filing the additional ground of appeal i.e. 17.11.2016. Thus, it was contended that there was no justification for this delay. The same group represented by the same

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

4. The second part of the period was between 31.09.2015, when the decision in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd., was rendered by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, and the date of filing the additional ground of appeal i.e. 17.11.2016. Thus, it was contended that there was no justification for this delay. The same group represented by the same

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

253 (Delhi) 7. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [11 CTR 139] [GUJARAT] 8.Ace Multi Axes System Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014]367 ITR 266 (Karnataka) 9 ITO vs. Smt. Urmila Bhandari [ITA Nos.766, 2593/Del/2013] 10 Deputy Commissioner of Incme Tax v. Selvel Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2015]37 ITR(T) 611 (Kolkata Trib.) 11. Century Enka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMRUDDHI CEMENT LIMITED (SINCE AMALGAMATED INTO M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

253 (Delhi) 7. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [11 CTR 139] [GUJARAT] 8.Ace Multi Axes System Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014]367 ITR 266 (Karnataka) 9 ITO vs. Smt. Urmila Bhandari [ITA Nos.766, 2593/Del/2013] 10 Deputy Commissioner of Incme Tax v. Selvel Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2015]37 ITR(T) 611 (Kolkata Trib.) 11. Century Enka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMRUDDHI CEMENT LIMITED (SINCE AMALGAMATED INTO M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

253 (Delhi) 7. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [11 CTR 139] [GUJARAT] 8.Ace Multi Axes System Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014]367 ITR 266 (Karnataka) 9 ITO vs. Smt. Urmila Bhandari [ITA Nos.766, 2593/Del/2013] 10 Deputy Commissioner of Incme Tax v. Selvel Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2015]37 ITR(T) 611 (Kolkata Trib.) 11. Century Enka