ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TECH MAHINDRA ( R &D SERVICES) LTD (NOW MERGED WITH TECH MAHINDRA LTD), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

80C to 80U . Section 80B(5) defines for the purposes of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter. Therefore, the deduction under section 10A has to be given at the stage when the profits and gains of business are computed

J.P . MORGAN SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 J.P. Morgan Services P. Ltd., Dcit (Osd)-8(1) Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mumbai- बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Mahakali Caves Vs. Road, Chakala Junction, Andheri(E) Mumba-400093 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

Transfer pricing officer (TPO). It has been further clarified by way of note in the said letter that apportionment between ‘US’ and ‘non-US’ ALP and TP adjustment had been margined out by the APA section (of FT and TR Division) on the basis of ‘US’ and ‘non-US’ revenue. It is further noted from the perusal of the annual

J.P. MORGAN SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 J.P. Morgan Services P. Ltd., Dcit (Osd)-8(1) Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mumbai- बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Mahakali Caves Vs. Road, Chakala Junction, Andheri(E) Mumba-400093 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

Transfer pricing officer (TPO). It has been further clarified by way of note in the said letter that apportionment between ‘US’ and ‘non-US’ ALP and TP adjustment had been margined out by the APA section (of FT and TR Division) on the basis of ‘US’ and ‘non-US’ revenue. It is further noted from the perusal of the annual

J.P MORGAN SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 J.P. Morgan Services India P. Dcit 8(2) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Prism Tower, Level No.9 To M.K. Rd Vs. 11, Link Rd, Mindspace, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W) Mumbai-400064 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

Transfer pricing officer (TPO). It has been further clarified by way of note in the said letter that apportionment between ‘US’ and ‘non-US’ ALP and TP adjustment had been margined out by the APA section (of FT and TR Division) on the basis of ‘US’ and ‘non-US’ revenue. It is further noted from the perusal of the annual

NIRANJAN SHRICHAND MATTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

price [under section 50C(1) of the Act] at Rs.44,26,083/- as against the actual share of the assessee of Rs.43,33,300/-. The AO substituted the actual sale consideration with the fair market value on the basis of sale deed and thus framed the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 5,31,085/- towards long term capital

MOHEMMED ANWAR BY LEGAL HEIR MOHAMMED AAMER,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, 17(2), MUMBAI

80C and section 80TTA of the Act, the assessee filed\nhis return of income on 24/12/2014 declaring a total income of Rs.\n36,62,870. The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation\nissued under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of the\ninformation received from the DDIT(Investigation), Unit-2(3), Kolkata that

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

transferred by the assessee is not at all a depreciable asset and thus, the question of claiming depreciation on the same does not arise. 27. In the perception of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Accountant Member, the above interpretation of the statute will lead to allowance of double deduction to the assessee, which is not permitted under

PANKAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. We have also perused the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A). From the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer it is proved on record that the assessees were directors / partners of 15 companies from

CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. We have also perused the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A). From the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer it is proved on record that the assessees were directors / partners of 15 companies from

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. We have also perused the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A). From the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer it is proved on record that the assessees were directors / partners of 15 companies from

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

transferred by the assessee is not at all a depreciable asset and thus, the question of claiming depreciation on the same does not arise. 27. In the perception of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Accountant Member, the above interpretation of the statute will lead to allowance of double deduction to the assessee, which is not permitted under

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

price paid for the cost of acquisition of 10,000 shares Rs.10,000/- with indexation from 2000-01. The AO had taken the cost of acquisition of 10,000 shares as on 31.03.2005 at WDV cost as on that date and accordingly calculated the WDV of 6386 shares at Rs.38,08,594/-. After indexing the same to inflation index

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

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

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , 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

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, 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

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

RAJESH M JAIN (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

prices mainly on the basis of rumors & news in media in connection with the future prospect of the company.  We relied on following judgment of higher forum:  Shri Deepak Walji Karia vs. Income Tax Officer 28(1)(3) ITA No. 259/Mum/2021 Tribunal's Findings 4 Rajesh M Jain (HUF) The ITAT observed that the AO had relied heavily on third