RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

8 to 31 Chargeable Chargeable Exempt (Refer March 2024 [From (Refer Note 3) (Refer Note Note 5) commencement of 4) Finance Act, 2018 up to beginning of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024] After 1 April 2024 Chargeable Chargeable Chargeable [From commencement (Refer Note 3) (Refer Note (Refer Note 6) of Finance (No.2) Act, 4) 2024] Note 1 Exempt under section

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. CAPAGEMINI CONSULTING INDIA P. LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

CAPGEMINI CONSULTING INIDA P.LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

ITO (3) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. R.K. EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

2,77,12,293 Marketing & Advertising Private Limited 242 - 254 Speciality Paper 7,68,16,760 7,68,16,760 1,72,08,14,208 1,79,76,30,968 1,91,50,53,995 Limited Terry Towel 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 8,71,68,075 9,71,68,075 1,90,099,702 Industries Limited

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8(3), Mumbai "As regards the question whether there is any conflict between provisions of section 5(2) and provisions of section 68

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

2(22)(e) of the Act do not apply on receipt of preference share application money by Appellant from BTPL; B. Addition of preference share application money received amounting to Rs.90.00,00,OOP/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. 7. erred in not adjudicating the ground on taxability

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion the addition made by the AO on account of receipt of share premium is sustained. The Ground of Appeal No. 2 is dismissed." 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 6. We have heard both the parties

DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RANKIN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

68 as against section 56(2)(viib) which deals with issue of shares. In this regard, in view of the reasons given above, I find that the said implication made by the learned AO is merely based on presumptions and does not lay down the’ clear provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA. The learned

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

ACIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

8,40,72,255/- has been has been included in while arriving at the tot included in while arriving at the total business income al business income and the business income was set off against losses and the business income was set off against losses and the business income was set off against losses under the head income from other

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

8,100 B. FMV as on 01/04/1981 FMV as on 01/04/1981 3,64,516 3,64,516 Indexed Cost (3,64,516/100*551) Indexed Cost (3,64,516/100*551) 20,08,467 20,08,467 Land FSI to Assessee – (42%) (42%) 5,866 Out of TDR (FSI) of 51067 51,067 Parted to Developer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

8,100 B. FMV as on 01/04/1981 FMV as on 01/04/1981 3,64,516 3,64,516 Indexed Cost (3,64,516/100*551) Indexed Cost (3,64,516/100*551) 20,08,467 20,08,467 Land FSI to Assessee – (42%) (42%) 5,866 Out of TDR (FSI) of 51067 51,067 Parted to Developer

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

8,100 B. FMV as on 01/04/1981 FMV as on 01/04/1981 3,64,516 3,64,516 Indexed Cost (3,64,516/100*551) Indexed Cost (3,64,516/100*551) 20,08,467 20,08,467 Land FSI to Assessee – (42%) (42%) 5,866 Out of TDR (FSI) of 51067 51,067 Parted to Developer