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

50B it has been laid down that for computing the net worth the aggregate value of total assets in the case of depreciable assets would be the written down value of the block of assets determined in accordance with the provisions of sub item © of item(i) of sub clause (C) of clause (6) of section

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

68,88,790/- to the income of the assessee. 3. Matter carried to Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 4 ITA No.3298/M/2012 7 ITA No.3537/M/2012 M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee company is in media business. During the year assessee has earned the dividend income of Rs.15.68 crores

ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

68,88,790/- to the income of the assessee. 3. Matter carried to Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 4 ITA No.3298/M/2012 7 ITA No.3537/M/2012 M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee company is in media business. During the year assessee has earned the dividend income of Rs.15.68 crores

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SODEXO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

50B(3) of the Act which was mandatorily to be filed by the assessee and therefore, there is a failure on the part of the assessee in true and full disclosure of the material facts. The LTCG of Rs.2,99,95,422/- worked out by the assessee is reproduced as under: - Particulars Amount Net worth of the business being

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

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

68,30,713) by Barclays UK Each of the grounds of appeal referred above is separate and may kindly be considered as independent of each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or withdraw the ground of appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

68,72,172/- should not have been allowed as expense\nin the current AY 2021-22.\n4.3 The Assessee in its reply filed before the ld PCIT explained\nthat Assessee had paid lease rentals to ‘OPC Assets Solutions\nPrivate Ltd.' (OPC) in respect of featured phones. It was agreed\nbetween the OPC and the Assessee that lease rentals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

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

68,19,012/- made by the AO in respect of LTCG on sale of shares of RIL is deleted.” 6. Being aggrieved by the above order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now before us. 7. Assailing the action of Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had factually

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

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

68,19,012/- made by the AO in respect of LTCG on sale of shares of RIL is deleted.” 6. Being aggrieved by the above order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now before us. 7. Assailing the action of Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had factually

VIP CLOTHING LIMITED,THANE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2889/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vip Clothing Ltd. (Formerly बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Known As Maxwell Vs. Industries Ltd.) Plaza, Near Mohan Pride, Vip Compound, Kon Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Village, Bhiwandi-Kalyan Kalyan(W). Road, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane, Pin-421302 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm1549A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( Dr) Assessee By: Subodh L. Ratnaparkhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Aurangabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirm. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

section 50B of the Act, therefore, it is not a case to levy the penalty. It is also contended that after the realizing of the error, the assessee filed the revised computation of income and corrected the difference of capital gain of Rs.87,68

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2002-03 Tata Chemicals Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Bombay House, Vs. Income Tax-2(3)(1), 5Th 24 Homi Mody Street, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai-400001 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner Tata Chemicals Ltd. Of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Vs. Bombay House, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 24 Homi Mody Street, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019

68,923/- as allowable to be reduced from the sale consideration of Rs.3.75 crores and accordingly worked out the claim u/s 50B of the Act. Further, holding that once the sale of detergent division is treated as a slump sale, the AO withdrew the capital loss on sale of lease hold land (forming part of sale of assets of detergent

M/S GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68,397/- and book profit remain unchanged. 012. Assessee aggrieved with Assessment order preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A) contesting that action under Section 147 of the Act is bad in law as [1] it is merely on change of opinion, [2] no fresh tangible material brought on record and [3] as reassessment is beyond 4 years

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68,397/- and book profit remain unchanged. 012. Assessee aggrieved with Assessment order preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A) contesting that action under Section 147 of the Act is bad in law as [1] it is merely on change of opinion, [2] no fresh tangible material brought on record and [3] as reassessment is beyond 4 years

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68,397/- and book profit remain unchanged. 012. Assessee aggrieved with Assessment order preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A) contesting that action under Section 147 of the Act is bad in law as [1] it is merely on change of opinion, [2] no fresh tangible material brought on record and [3] as reassessment is beyond 4 years

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

50B of the Act. We have also perused the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACC Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT vide ITA No. 5655/Mum/2011 dated 25.08.2023 as referred by the assessee. In that case it is categorically mentioned in note of the Board of Director of the Company that transactions of sale of business would be item

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. CIR. 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

50B of the Act. We have also perused the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACC Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT vide ITA No. 5655/Mum/2011 dated 25.08.2023 as referred by the assessee. In that case it is categorically mentioned in note of the Board of Director of the Company that transactions of sale of business would be item

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGINE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

50B of the Act. We have also perused the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACC Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT vide ITA No. 5655/Mum/2011 dated 25.08.2023 as referred by the assessee. In that case it is categorically mentioned in note of the Board of Director of the Company that transactions of sale of business would be item

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGINENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

50B of the Act. We have also perused the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACC Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT vide ITA No. 5655/Mum/2011 dated 25.08.2023 as referred by the assessee. In that case it is categorically mentioned in note of the Board of Director of the Company that transactions of sale of business would be item

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

50B of the Act. We have also perused the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACC Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT vide ITA No. 5655/Mum/2011 dated 25.08.2023 as referred by the assessee. In that case it is categorically mentioned in note of the Board of Director of the Company that transactions of sale of business would be item

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

50B of the Act. We have also perused the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACC Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT vide ITA No. 5655/Mum/2011 dated 25.08.2023 as referred by the assessee. In that case it is categorically mentioned in note of the Board of Director of the Company that transactions of sale of business would be item