TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

MIDDLE INCOME GROUP CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

section 80P was confirmed. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee has filed present appeal before us. 4. Brief history of assessee-society leading to bringing the alleged STCG at its hand are that in the year 1961 and 1962, the Maharashtra Housing Board (MHB) constructed 16 residential building consisting of 168 flats of 3 categories

M/S. DHARAVI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -20 , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

80P. 6.1 Undoubtedly, the Ld.AO has broad powers u/s.143(2) when it is a complete scrutiny. The notice issued under 143(2) was for complete scrutiny.Howeverclarification and documents were called for in respect of unsecured loans only. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO thus limited the scrutiny to issue relating to unsecured loans. There is nothing on record to suggest

M/S APACE REALTY ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KALYAN

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Transfer Price Index came into effect from the AY 2013-14 with limit of transaction exceeding Rs. 5.00 crore which has been amended to Rs.20.00 crore in the budget of 2015 relevant to AY2016-17, The transaction relating to purchase of Land is at Arm's Length Price, which can be evidence from the Index-II issued by registration local

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former\nemployer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 38) From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between ‘stock-in-trade’ and ‘investment’ and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would\nalso be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act,\n1949 applies.\n38) From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves\nout a distinction between ‘stock-in-trade' and ‘investment' and provides that if the\nmotive behind purchase and sale of shares

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former\nemployer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 115TA of the Act\nprovides for different rates for different Assessees, which\nsubstantiates that the tax paid by trust u/s 115TA of the Act is the\ntax paid on behalf of the Assessee. The taxability in the hands of\nthe Securitisation trust.\nThus, the interest income of the Assessee, though not taxed in the\nhands of the Assessee (investor

YES BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 10(34)\nof the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income\nand is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of\nthe Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between\ntaxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share and Stock\n\nM/s Yes Bank

ESSAR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

transferred the same earlier for Rs 1,260 Crores to ECHK and claimed loss. 6.2. In this regard, we respectfully submit, that the appointed date of the amalgamation was not in the year under consideration (AY 2012-13). Further, the consideration was not received by the assessee and hence had no bearing on its taxable income. Without prejudice, we respectfully

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. SUMER BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

2. coming to the core of the submission on merits made by the Ld. DR, it is humbly submitted that the Ld. DR has sought to argue completely contrary to the Assessment Order and even the order to the Ld. CIT(A). The crux of his argument is that undisclosed income offered during search must be taxed under the head

SUMER BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

2. coming to the core of the submission on merits made by the Ld. DR, it is humbly submitted that the Ld. DR has sought to argue completely contrary to the Assessment Order and even the order to the Ld. CIT(A). The crux of his argument is that undisclosed income offered during search must be taxed under the head