DEPUTY CIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

43C of the Act i.e. chapter IV of the Act, when income is to be computed as per the provisions of the said section. Chapter-XII-G, was introduced by the Finance (No.2)Act,2004,with effect from April 1,2005,and it provides for TTS, which is optional. The Notes on Clauses appended to the Finance (No.2) Bill

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

68,141/- which was claimed exempt under section 10(33) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee-company has debited an interest expenses of Rs. 15,24,00,244/- in the profit and loss account but has not attributed any expenditure towards earning of such exempt income. The assessee argued before the AO that investments

DCIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI vs. D.Y PATIL SPORTS ACADEMY, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

68,37,614/- in contravention of the decision of Escorts Ltd. Vs. UOI 799 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since section 11 of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for the objects of the trust as application and does not specifically & expressly provide for double deduction on account of depreciation

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

ITO 17(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KAMLESH KESWARWANI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Shri Kamlesh Kesarwani, Ward-17(2)(2), 90, L.B.S. Market, बनाम/ R. No.212, Piramal Matunga (East), Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400019 Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aobpk3553K

68 of the Act. 2.3. On appeal, before the ld. First Appellate Authority, the factual matrix was considered and found that the assessee himself declared the chargeable profit at 9.52% and even as per the provisions of section 44AF, a sum of Rs.5% is mentioned in the retail business, therefore, granted relief to the assessee. The addition was restricted

ASLAM HARUN MEMON,THANE vs. ITO, WARD -4(1), THANE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

68 of the Act. 5. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. The assessee interalia submitted that the assessee is under the scheme of section 44AF for the assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, he did not require to maintain the books of account. However, the assessee has prepared memorandum, balance

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

43C. It, therefore, follows that when the income of the assessee from the business of operating ships is computed as per the special provisions contained in Chapter XIIG, only the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning income of the said business are deemed to be allowed and nothing else. It, therefore, cannot be said that when the income

DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

43C. It, therefore, follows that when the income of the assessee from the business of operating ships is computed as per the special provisions contained in Chapter XIIG, only the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning income of the said business are deemed to be allowed and nothing else. It, therefore, cannot be said that when the income

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

68]  Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Chemosyn Ltd. CIT v. Chemosyn Ltd. [371 ITR 427] 6.1 It is an undisputed fact that the assessee obtained an interest

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

68]  Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Chemosyn Ltd. CIT v. Chemosyn Ltd. [371 ITR 427] 6.1 It is an undisputed fact that the assessee obtained an interest