DSV AIR & SEA PVT. LTD (SUCESSSOR TO PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub- section (1) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpyramid Developers, 2Nd Floor, Sharda Bhavan, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 400 005, Pan: Aaifp1958J ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 32(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Respondent

16A of that Act. [Explanation 1]. —For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). [Explanation 2. —For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

16A, the same is an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 3. Provision for Depreciation of investments of Rs.46,19,11,355 3.1 In the aforesaid assessment year, the Bank had debited an amount of Rs.297,92,33,446 as provision for depreciation on investments. This figure comprises of provision made in respect of securities held

BHAVESH SHANTILAL GOHIL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhavesh Shantilal Gohil A-1304, Gohil Mansion, Irani Wadi, Shantilal Mody X Road No. 2, Asian Bakary Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067 Pan: Abkpg2287Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 35(1)(2) R. No. 2, C-12, Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

16A of that Act. 32[Explanation 1].—for the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). 33[Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

MUKESH KISHINDAS BATHIJA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

16A of that Act.\n[Explanation 1].-For the purposes of this section, \"Valuation Officer\" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).\n[Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, the expression \"assessable\" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstand

KIRAN ASHOK DESAI,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT MUMBAI-19, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed and order passed by the Ld

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalkiran Ashok Desai, D-3, Triveni Building, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Maharashtra 400 066 Pan: Aabpd6275H ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit R. No. 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 ..... Respondent

16A of that Act. 8 Kiran Ashok Desai Explanation 1].—for the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.—for the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have

RAMESH S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhramesh S. Shah Vs. The Dcit, 203, A Wing Peninsula Central Circle -5(3) Corporate Park Ganpatrao Room No. 1906, 19Th Kadam Marg, Floor, Air India Building Lower Parel, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400013 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aagps9863H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Agnes P. Thomas Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2023

16A of that Act. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2- Fro the purpose of this section the expression “assessable” means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have notwithstanding anything to the contrary

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

ZAHIDA BANO MOHAMMAD YUSUF SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalzahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh A/10 Jai Hind Society, Asalpha Gahtkopar Link, Ro Mohili Village Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 ............... Appellant Pan: Buups3134C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400020

16A of that Act. Explanation 1.— For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

THE BOMBAY SAMACHAR PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

MOHAMMED KHALID HABIB PARIHAR,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O., WARD-31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

FAKHRUDDIN T.MALIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD.21(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

16A of that Act.\nExplanation 1.— For the purposes of this section, \"Valuation Officer\" shall\nhave the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act,\n1957 (27 of 1957).\nExplanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, the expression\n\"assessable\" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would\nhave, notwithstanding anything

DSV AIR & SEA PVT LTD.,,MUM vs. ASST UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFASSC, MUM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing grounds. All these grounds have not been pressed at the time of hearing. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1-10 which have not been pressed are dismissed. Further assessee has also raised additional ground stating that assessment order is barred by limitation in view of Judgment of Madras High Court in Roca Bathrooms has also not been pressed, therefore same

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

16A (5) of the WT Act, 1957 vide Order No. SE(V)/Hyd/2514/CG/1674 dated 26.03.2013 in respect of a plot of land of ACC Ltd. at Village Kukatpally and Village Moosapet (Sanathnagar), Andhra Pradesh received in this on 01.04.2013. The District Valuation Officer estimated the FMV of the said property at Rs.16,30,765/- as on 01.04.1981 after considering

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

16A (5) of the WT Act, 1957 vide Order No. SE(V)/Hyd/2514/CG/1674 dated 26.03.2013 in respect of a plot of land of ACC Ltd. at Village Kukatpally and Village Moosapet (Sanathnagar), Andhra Pradesh received in this on 01.04.2013. The District Valuation Officer estimated the FMV of the said property at Rs.16,30,765/- as on 01.04.1981 after considering

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

16A (5) of the WT Act, 1957 vide Order No. SE(V)/Hyd/2514/CG/1674 dated 26.03.2013 in respect of a plot of land of ACC Ltd. at Village Kukatpally and Village Moosapet (Sanathnagar), Andhra Pradesh received in this on 01.04.2013. The District Valuation Officer estimated the FMV of the said property at Rs.16,30,765/- as on 01.04.1981 after considering

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails