DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 8, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

section 43. The sub clause (C) lays down the specific mode for computation of WDV in the case of a slump sale as produced below: (C) in the case of a slump sale, decrease by the actual cost of the asset falling within that block as reduced- a) by the amount of depreciation actually allowed to him under this

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act of INR 7,959,683,862 be deleted. Ground No. 3 - Re-raising of demand which was raised in the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act 2 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

ACIT - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PROGRESSIVE SHARE BROKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

43 (Bom.). On the other hand, shri Rohit Golecha, Ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order by inviting 3 M/s Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd. our attention to page-12 onwards. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J. M. Financial Services Ltd. & Ors. Vs JCIT (2017) 54 ITR (Trib

DCIT 4 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAMSHI SECURITIES P LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-4(1)(1) M/S Dharamshi Securities Limited 6Th Floor, 640, Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ 1073, Quest, Behind Beau Monde Towers M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajabhau Desai Marg, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai – 400 025 Pan No.: Aaacd-3924-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Jha- Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

68,41,119/- incurred in the trading activity on account of derivative segment (futures and options) against the business income during the year without appreciating the fact that AO has rightly treated the losses as speculative loss and not allowed to set off by invoking the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Income

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 43(6)(c) with regard to block of assets, it says that in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year, the aggregate of the written down values of all assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year and adjusted, -- (A) by the increase of the actual cost of assets

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

c) to section 29 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10- 1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

68 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act read with rule 53 of the rules was an expenditure directly connected or related to the carrying on of the assessee's business. 10. As stated above, the law is well-settled that for the purpose of Income-tax, any contribution made or expenditure incurred by the assessee which is directly connected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

6,66,11,633/- with any corroborative evidences, explain & establish, that the assessee firm infact carried any ‘consultancy services’ during the year and in absence of any manpower, the genuineness of genuineness of the same cannot be established and remains unexplained and unsubstantiated. The genuineness about rendering of services by the assessee firm is not at all established as explained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

6,66,11,633/- with any corroborative evidences, explain & establish, that the assessee firm infact carried any ‘consultancy services’ during the year and in absence of any manpower, the genuineness of genuineness of the same cannot be established and remains unexplained and unsubstantiated. The genuineness about rendering of services by the assessee firm is not at all established as explained

JM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

68, 428/- on BSE membership rights and of Rs.2,61,528/- on NSE membership rights be directed to be allowed. 5. We have gone through the order 28.2.2014 of the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for AY 2008-09. We notice that the Tribunal has allowed the similar claim of the assessee for depreciation

DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SPS SHARE BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result Revenue fails in this appeal

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

c. Membership of the Currency Derivatives Segment is separate from the membership of the other segments of the Exchange as mentioned under para 6.1 of the Report, d. Appropriate mechanisms preventing participation of "persons resident outside India" as defined in Section 2(w) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 in Exchange Traded Currency Derivatives be put in place

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. WYETH LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS WYETH LEDERLE LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

43 ITA NO. 3508/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2004-05) M/s. Wyeth Limited u/s.43(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 55. With regard to Ground No. 4, which is in respect of deduction under section 80HHC. Ground no. 4 is reproduced below: - “The CIT(A) erred in holding that while computing deduction under section

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than