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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

aa)(iiia) of the Act providing for cost of acquisition of bonus shares to be Nil cannot be imported into the provisions of section 55(2)(ac) of the Act and it has to be considered as per grand-fathering provisions i.e. fair market value as on 31 January 2018 should be adopted; Amendment to Explanation to section 55(2

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

2. Transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations, 2.1 The Id. CTT (A) erred in law, on facts and in circumstances of the case in not deleting the transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the ld. AO as being bad in law, illegal and unsustainable on the basis of the following grounds, taken singly or cumulatively: 2.1.1 a) The Id. DCIT has failed to comply

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

55 I.T.A. No. 2364/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2365/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2366/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2367/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 2767/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 112/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 111/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 113/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 114/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 115/Mum/2025 on such goods and services which are available in the open market, then same can be adopted for the purpose of Section 80IA(8). 13.6. Further, the different manner

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

AA+", strongly proving that the assessee\nis the economic owner of the brand and the 'value creation' for the said\nintangible asset of brand has been carried out only by the assessee and\nnot by Toto Sons Ltd, leaving absolutely no lota of doubt or ambiguity on\nthe economic ownership of the brand and so, Toto Sons Ltd. having been

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

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

aa) of the 1957 Act. There is an important difference between the right to reproduce and the right to use computer software. Whereas the former would amount to parting with a copyright by the owner thereof, the latter would not. When, under a non-exclusive licence, an end -user gets the right to use computer software in the form

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

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

aa) of the 1957 Act. There is an important difference between the right to reproduce and the right to use computer software. Whereas the former would amount to parting with a copyright by the owner thereof, the latter would not. When, under a non-exclusive licence, an end -user gets the right to use computer software in the form

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. J.M. FINANCIAL LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

55(2)(aa) of the Income-tax t. Act, 1961 be accepted and that the long-term capital loss be accepted at Rs.54,90,36,870/- and the short-term capital loss be accepted at Rs.465,44,19,508/-. 5 ITAs 3925 & 3987/Mum/2015 Ground IV: Set-off of Long-Term Capital Loss on sale of shares of JM Financial Products

JM FINANCIAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

55(2)(aa) of the Income-tax t. Act, 1961 be accepted and that the long-term capital loss be accepted at Rs.54,90,36,870/- and the short-term capital loss be accepted at Rs.465,44,19,508/-. 5 ITAs 3925 & 3987/Mum/2015 Ground IV: Set-off of Long-Term Capital Loss on sale of shares of JM Financial Products

DCIT, CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

aa), the cost of original unit remains the\nsame at which the original units were acquired and sale of original units resulted in Loss of Rs. 22,90,54,766/-\n59. Thus, Ld CIT (A) has wrongly applied provision of dividend stripping contained in 94(7) on transaction in the nature of bonus stripping covered by section 94(8) which

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

AA+", strongly proving that the assessee\nis the economic owner of the brand and the 'value creation' for the said\nintangible asset of brand has been carried out only by the assessee and\nnot by Toto Sons Ltd, leaving absolutely no iota of doubt or ambiguity on\nthe economic ownership of the brand and so, Toto Sons Ltd. having been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

aa) appoint the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or (b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section 113, or (c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be the Special Planning Authority for developing the notified area

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

aa) appoint the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or (b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section 113, or (c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be the Special Planning Authority for developing the notified area

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

AA) of the act, 1961. Mere sanction of scheme is by High Court of demerger under the companies act 1956 is by itself not sufficient. 74. Hon Bombay High court in Casby CFS P Ltd in re [ 2015] 56 taxmann.com 263 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxman 89 (Bom.) has also held asunder: - Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) 39. According

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

AA) of the act, 1961. Mere sanction of scheme is by High Court of demerger under the companies act 1956 is by itself not sufficient. 74. Hon Bombay High court in Casby CFS P Ltd in re [ 2015] 56 taxmann.com 263 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxman 89 (Bom.) has also held asunder: - Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) 39. According

M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (EARLIER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8,KOLKATTA), MUMBAI

aa), the cost of original unit remains the\n\nsame at which the original units were acquired and sale of\noriginal units resulted in Loss of Rs. 22,90,54,766/-\n\n59. Thus, Ld CIT (A) has wrongly applied provision of dividend\nstripping contained in 94(7) on transaction in the nature of\nbonus stripping covered by section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

aa) appoint the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area\nDevelopment Act, 1976, or\n\n(b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section\n113,\nor\n\n(c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish\nunder the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be\nthe Special Planning Authority for developing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

aa) appoint the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area\nDevelopment Act, 1976, or\n\n(b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section\n113,\n\nor\n\n(c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish\nunder the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be\nthe Special Planning Authority for developing

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

55\ntaxmann.com 523/231 Таxman 401 to support the benchmarking\nsubmissions that LIBOR would be appropriate benchmarking rate\non such outbound loan transactions. The list of other decisions\nwhich has also affirmed the said view, as relied upon by assessee\nduring appellate proceedings, has also been tabulated on page\nnos.18 19 of the appellate order.\n18-19 with assessee's submissions

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA HOMES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

55 (Bom), which had affirmed the Tribunal's view that benchmarking based on Bloomberg/Thomson Reuters databases, in the absence of INR denominated debt instruments, could not be regarded as appropriate. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:\n\n“Further, it is noted that similar methodology were adopted by the appellant as well