KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

section 68 of the Act, referred to by your Honor in the show cause. Of course the creditworthiness of such payer is vouched by their registration with the concerned stock exchange and SEBI. 8. Attention of your Honor is brought to various pronounced rulings stated below: a. The Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (supra

TRENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T.-2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 35D of the Act, the aforesaid ruling relied upon by the Assessing Officer is distinguishable from the assessee’s case and hence, not applicable. 33. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. DR submits that the facts relied on by the assessee in the case of Tolani Bulk

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act. ii. The learned Assessing Officer further examined the book profit computation made by the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has credited a sum of ₹13,13,79,646/- „below the line‟ on account of demerger of one unit to Zee Entertainment Ltd, which represents excess of liabilities over assets of undertaking. This

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act. ii. The learned Assessing Officer further examined the book profit computation made by the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has credited a sum of ₹13,13,79,646/- „below the line‟ on account of demerger of one unit to Zee Entertainment Ltd, which represents excess of liabilities over assets of undertaking. This

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act. ii. The learned Assessing Officer further examined the book profit computation made by the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has credited a sum of ₹13,13,79,646/- „below the line‟ on account of demerger of one unit to Zee Entertainment Ltd, which represents excess of liabilities over assets of undertaking. This

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act. ii. The learned Assessing Officer further examined the book profit computation made by the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has credited a sum of ₹13,13,79,646/- „below the line‟ on account of demerger of one unit to Zee Entertainment Ltd, which represents excess of liabilities over assets of undertaking. This

NEUZEN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NAFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

35D(2)", "Section 68", "Section 131", "Section 133(6)", "Section 271AAC(1)"], "issues": "1. Whether expenses

M/S PODDAR FININ CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

35D loss to be carried forward was claimed of Rs.87,178/-. The appellant company collected the share premium of Rs.4,93,50,000/- from five parties i.e. namely M/s Matrix Systel P. Ltd., M/s. Kumaon Engg. Co. P. Ltd., M/s JMD Sounds Ltd. & M/s. Nimidhi Consultants P. Ltd. The assessee was asked to substantiate the claim but no explanation

SHENDRA ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

68,062/-. 5.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 5.3 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the computation of such addition is not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary and / or is excessive.” 5. Ground no.6, being general in nature

INDUSIND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2588/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) बनधम/ M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd Pr. Chief Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Tower No.1, Income-Tax-2 Vs. Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, One India Bulls Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Elphistone Road, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1314G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Karthik Natarajan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013-14 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2013 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.1556,56,31,880/- For The A.Y. 2013-14. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2016 Assessing The Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.1725,96,68,536/-. On Verification, It Was Found That The Order Dated 28.12.2016 Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Requires Revision. The Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On The Following Grounds: - “On Examination Of The Records It Is Seen That Deduction To The Tune Of Rs.3,22,50,564/- Has Been Allowed To The Assessee U/S 35D Of The I.T. Act, 1961. However, It Was Noticed That The Said

68,536/-. On verification, it was found that the order dated 28.12.2016 was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and requires revision. The notice was issued to the assessee on the following grounds: - “On examination of the records it is seen that deduction to the tune of Rs.3,22,50,564/- has been allowed to the assessee u/s 35D

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

35D and the\narguments of both the parties, we are of the view that there are no change in\nthe facts as in the last 7 years and, therefore, relying upon the decision of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321,\nit would not be at all appropriate to allow

ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEUZEN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Section 35D is applicable in case of revenue expenses before the commencement of business and after the commencement of business in connection with extension undertaking or in connection with setting of new unit. Whereas in the case of the assessee, increase in the share capital was neither extension of business nor setting up of new unit, in fact this

POWERNETICS EQUIPMENT INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 9(2)4, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 3078/मुं/2016 ("न.व. 2011-12) M/S. Powernetics Equipments India Pvt. Ltd. 7C,Bindya, Bandra Reclamation, Bndra(W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aaacp9311Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

68 of the Act, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the addition has been made in respect of loans taken by assessee from Ms. Titli Thind- Rs.1,50,000/- and Ms. Anita Chavan – Rs.3,10,000/-. The assessee had filed complete details of the loans along with confirmations from the lenders. Since, the assessee in first instance

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

35D. 7. During the assessment proceedings before us, the Ld AR stated that the said expenditure was incurred in connection with the issue of shares for increase in share capital. AO made disallowance basing on the apex court judgments in the case of M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd (225 ITR 798)(SC) and M/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

35D. 7. During the assessment proceedings before us, the Ld AR stated that the said expenditure was incurred in connection with the issue of shares for increase in share capital. AO made disallowance basing on the apex court judgments in the case of M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd (225 ITR 798)(SC) and M/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

68. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. C.O. no.248/Mum./2017 – By Revenue 69. There is an inordinate delay of 4,287 days in filing the cross objection. Seeking condonation of delay, it is submitted that after receiving the additional ground raised by the assessee, the Department has proposed to file the cross–objection. Hence, the delay

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

68. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. C.O. no.248/Mum./2017 – By Revenue 69. There is an inordinate delay of 4,287 days in filing the cross objection. Seeking condonation of delay, it is submitted that after receiving the additional ground raised by the assessee, the Department has proposed to file the cross–objection. Hence, the delay

RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

35D of the Act was never the issue before either the AO or before the CIT(A). At the second appeal, Ld CIT DR cannot make a new case by invoking section 35 D of the Act even if it is correctly invokable. For this proposition, he relied on various binding judgment in the case of Mahendra and Mahendra