DCIT, CIRCLE.6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CYQUATOR MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, overall, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Cyquator Media R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Building, Road, Mumbai-400020. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Cross Objection No. 302/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Cyquator Media Services बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4478/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Cyquator Media बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 135, Continental Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp0069P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali/Ms. Slachi Jain Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) & Mr. R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2023 C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

68 of the Act. Ground Nos. 5 to 7 of the Revenue’s appeal therefore stand dismissed. C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd. 51. Ground No. 8 of the Revenue’s appeal, Ground Nos. 3 & 4 of the Cross Objections as well as Ground No. 3 & the Additional ground of the assessee’s appeal

DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDILA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1491/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 9(2)(2) Credila Financial Services R.No. 665A, 6 T H Floor, Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, B-301 Citi Point, V. Mumbai-400020 Next To Kohinoor Continental Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccc8789P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

68) /2(71) of the Companies Act and Section 2(18) and 79 of the 1961 Act along with above CBDT instructions , it is clear that where a private company is subsidiary of a public company, such private company shall also be considered a „public company‟ . The assessee also relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai

DCIT CIRCLE-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SUNJEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

Section 72A of the Act. By respectfully following the said proposition, we hereby hold that the assessee’s claim cannot be disallowed merely for non-filing of the form no. 62. Pertinently, neither the ld. AO nor the ld. CIT(A) has specified about the desired installed capacity and the assessee has also not brought the exact figures before

SUNJEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

Section 72A of the Act. By respectfully following the said proposition, we hereby hold that the assessee’s claim cannot be disallowed merely for non-filing of the form no. 62. Pertinently, neither the ld. AO nor the ld. CIT(A) has specified about the desired installed capacity and the assessee has also not brought the exact figures before

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

THE DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

Section 72A of the Act as under:- AY Unabsorbed Business Loss Total Depreciation 1999-2000 13,35,11,363 6,14,68

RELIANCE HOME FINANC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

68,251 which pertained to India Debt Management Pvt Ltd. It was seen that in AY 2016-17, IDMPL had also set off business loss of Rs.14,36,669. The set off of loss of same business loss by two different accesses in the same AY needed to be verified. Further as per the provisions of section 72A

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

72A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the intention of the legislature was that the property should include all assets pertaining to the undertaking. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that section

JUST DIAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

72A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the intention of the legislature was that the property should include all assets pertaining to the undertaking. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that section

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

72A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the intention of the legislature was that the property should include all assets pertaining to the undertaking. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that section

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ALSTOM PROJECTS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result: ITA No.5335/Mum/2014 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jain & Sh. Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08 Pan : Aabca8679F Dy. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Alstom Projects India Ltd., The International, 5Th Floor, Circle 1(1), Mumbai. 16, Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Off Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Pan : Aabca8679F M/S. Alstom India Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, (Earlier Known As Alstom Projects Range 1(1), India Limited), Mumbai. Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan : Aabca8679F Dy. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Alstom India Ltd., Circle 1(1), (Formerly Kown As Alstom Projects Sindia Ltd.,)The International, 5Th Mumbai. Floor, 16, Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Off Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Years 2007-08 & 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan : Aabca8679F

68 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 6 of the service-tax Rules, 1994, it could not be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. In this regard, reliance has been placed on following case laws: i) “Technimont ICBP Ltd. vs. ACIT”, 1931/M/2008 order dated 4.4.2012. ii) “Elcome Surveys Private Limite vs. ACIT”, 2924/M/2010 dated 4.4.2012 iii) “Kalu Karman

ALSTOM INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result: ITA No.5335/Mum/2014 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jain & Sh. Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08 Pan : Aabca8679F Dy. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Alstom Projects India Ltd., The International, 5Th Floor, Circle 1(1), Mumbai. 16, Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Off Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Pan : Aabca8679F M/S. Alstom India Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, (Earlier Known As Alstom Projects Range 1(1), India Limited), Mumbai. Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan : Aabca8679F Dy. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Alstom India Ltd., Circle 1(1), (Formerly Kown As Alstom Projects Sindia Ltd.,)The International, 5Th Mumbai. Floor, 16, Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Off Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Years 2007-08 & 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan : Aabca8679F

68 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 6 of the service-tax Rules, 1994, it could not be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. In this regard, reliance has been placed on following case laws: i) “Technimont ICBP Ltd. vs. ACIT”, 1931/M/2008 order dated 4.4.2012. ii) “Elcome Surveys Private Limite vs. ACIT”, 2924/M/2010 dated 4.4.2012 iii) “Kalu Karman

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ALSTOM PROJECTS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result: ITA No.5335/Mum/2014 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jain & Sh. Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08 Pan : Aabca8679F Dy. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Alstom Projects India Ltd., The International, 5Th Floor, Circle 1(1), Mumbai. 16, Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Off Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Pan : Aabca8679F M/S. Alstom India Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, (Earlier Known As Alstom Projects Range 1(1), India Limited), Mumbai. Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan : Aabca8679F Dy. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Alstom India Ltd., Circle 1(1), (Formerly Kown As Alstom Projects Sindia Ltd.,)The International, 5Th Mumbai. Floor, 16, Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Off Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Years 2007-08 & 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan : Aabca8679F

68 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 6 of the service-tax Rules, 1994, it could not be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. In this regard, reliance has been placed on following case laws: i) “Technimont ICBP Ltd. vs. ACIT”, 1931/M/2008 order dated 4.4.2012. ii) “Elcome Surveys Private Limite vs. ACIT”, 2924/M/2010 dated 4.4.2012 iii) “Kalu Karman

ALSTOM INDIA LTD( FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALSTOM PROJECTS INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result: ITA No.5335/Mum/2014 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jain & Sh. Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08 Pan : Aabca8679F Dy. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Alstom Projects India Ltd., The International, 5Th Floor, Circle 1(1), Mumbai. 16, Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Off Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Pan : Aabca8679F M/S. Alstom India Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, (Earlier Known As Alstom Projects Range 1(1), India Limited), Mumbai. Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan : Aabca8679F Dy. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Alstom India Ltd., Circle 1(1), (Formerly Kown As Alstom Projects Sindia Ltd.,)The International, 5Th Mumbai. Floor, 16, Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Off Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Years 2007-08 & 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan : Aabca8679F

68 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 6 of the service-tax Rules, 1994, it could not be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. In this regard, reliance has been placed on following case laws: i) “Technimont ICBP Ltd. vs. ACIT”, 1931/M/2008 order dated 4.4.2012. ii) “Elcome Surveys Private Limite vs. ACIT”, 2924/M/2010 dated 4.4.2012 iii) “Kalu Karman

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

72A(2) as applicable for A.Y.2003-04 are reproduced as under:- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the accumulated loss shall not be set off or carried forward and the unabsorbed depreciation shall not be allowed in the assessment of the amalgamated company- (i) holds continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation

USV P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-C-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

72A and section 79 of the Act. Page No. | 44 ITA NO. 891 & 2573/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2018-19) M/s. USV Private Limited 57. The Assessee had raised it's claim for set-off before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 17.12.2018. The Assessee at the time of filing of return of income, did not set off brought forward business losses

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

68,881,755 investments (C) Average of Total Assets (note 2) 60,00,67,066 1,05,98,57,098 82,99,62,082 I Disallowance of interest (A X B/C) 23,34,553 II Other expenditure ½% of average tax free investment 26,78,962 7. From the above factual matrix, it is observed that

TECH MAHINDRA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

68,881,755 investments (C) Average of Total Assets (note 2) 60,00,67,066 1,05,98,57,098 82,99,62,082 I Disallowance of interest (A X B/C) 23,34,553 II Other expenditure ½% of average tax free investment 26,78,962 7. From the above factual matrix, it is observed that