ABALABBA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-12(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

69B without giving any finding as to how the said Sections were applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case. 4) Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring decisions of the High Courts led before them. 5) Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring the fact that under a Family Settlement, there is no transfer of property. 6) Having

SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

price and the appellant offers no explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, Section him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

price and the appellant offers no explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, Section him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, Section

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Price (loss) Index Factor Rs. Rs. TML Holdings Pic Lid - Preference 1 shares 20,48,999 8,36,19,21,837 785/532 11,27,85,37,185 9,15,76,21,933 (2,12,09,15,252) TML Holdings Pte Lid - Preference 2 shares 5,00,000 2,43,18,62,500 785/582

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MAHESH CONBUILD P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

prices and therefore, invoking the provisions of Section 69B, the differential amount of Rs.98.88 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 22/03/2016 wherein the assessee, inter-alia, contended that merely because the stamp duty value was higher than agreed consideration

ITO 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAS PROPBUILD P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

prices and therefore, invoking the provisions of Section 69B, the differential amount of Rs.98.88 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 22/03/2016 wherein the assessee, inter-alia, contended that merely because the stamp duty value was higher than agreed consideration

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, , MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

transferred in his name for various reasons and thus this is the reason for the difference in number of shares as per the records maintained by the assessee which represents only a notional difference which would be resolved as and then the buyer takes delivery of the shares. The assessee also submitted that the said balance of Rs.27

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

transferred in his name for various reasons and thus this is the reason for the difference in number of shares as per the records maintained by the assessee which represents only a notional difference which would be resolved as and then the buyer takes delivery of the shares. The assessee also submitted that the said balance of Rs.27

M/S EVERFINE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 69B has been invoked by Assessing Officer or CIT(A) either and hence, whole addition is invalid on this count too. 12. On contrary, the Ld. DR for the revenue sought to rely on the order of the lower authorities. He strongly argued that the findings in the Due Diligence report of M/s. Gulmohar Towers Pvt. Ltd. itself shows

SATYAPAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CETRAL CIRCLE - 39, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

price in these loose sheets just to extract monies from their higher authorities in the guise of On-Money to be paid to the vendors. May be because of his possibility no documents were found to show that the money actually changed hands. 25. A perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee show that the authorized, issued and subscribed

SATYAPAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CETRAL CIRCLE - 39, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

price in these loose sheets just to extract monies from their higher authorities in the guise of On-Money to be paid to the vendors. May be because of his possibility no documents were found to show that the money actually changed hands. 25. A perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee show that the authorized, issued and subscribed

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

price including duties and taxes other than those duties and taxes subsequently recoverable by enterprise from the taxing authorities. Thus, it was submitted in alternative ITA.No,3890&4364/5063&5483/5165&5043/5166&5044/Mum/2016 M/s. Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai. that even if the said incentives are treated as capital receipt by tribunal, the taxes recoverable from Government are not part of the cost