SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

22A), a domestic company is defined as “an Indian company or any other company, which in respect of its income liable to tax in India makes prescribed arrangements for declaration and payment of dividends within India”, and Section 2(23A), a foreign company is defined as a company “which is not a domestic company” i.e. which has not made prescribed

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Salem

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Salem

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Salem

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Salem

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(20, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Salem

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNAIOTNAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Salem

M/S. SIMTOOLS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3) ( EARSTWHILE DCIT- CENT. CIR-42), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

price was brought down viz-a-viz market value. Even the flats which are sold almost in the same period had different rates as per agreement where there was no SCUD meeting the rates charged were higher viz-a-viz the rates fixed after SCUD meeting. Taking into consideration this factor, Mr. Abhinandan Lodha made a disclosure of Rs.51 Crore

JITENDRA SHARMA, ACIT, CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KASHYAP MAHESH VORA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

22A, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai- Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai- 400 006 400 012 PAN: ABXPV1914E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal a/w Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of hearing : 03/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 10/07/2025 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: The instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

section (1) of section 13 of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008” 14.30. In pursuance to the aforesaid rule, an order dated 09th May, 2006 was issued by concerned official of MOCA which reads as under:- “ ORDER Subject: Collection of Passenger Service Fee (PSF) at. Greenfield / Private airports - regarding Consequent to allowing private companies, Joint Venture. Companies