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

c se and in law, the CIT(A) erred ill confirming the action of the AO, in applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act to a leasehold property. The Appellant therefore prays it to be held that provisions of section 50C are not applicable to the leasehold property. (7) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1,2

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

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

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

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

C)-(E)\n3.29\n17.1. On perusal of the aforementioned chart in a very simple analysis,\nthe assessee had assets of Rs.7.84 Crores (being loan outstanding). The\nassessee was assigned assets, market value of which was Rs.4.55 Crores\n(being price of shares on NSE on the date of credit in the D-Mat account).\nThus, the assets of Rs.7.84 Crores

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

c) along with the additional Ground Nos. 2 & 2.1 of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. These grounds pertain to denial of application of income to the 23 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders Assessee in respect of on-money declared by the Assessee and its sister concern. In this regard the arguments

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

c) along with the additional Ground Nos. 2 & 2.1 of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. These grounds pertain to denial of application of income to the 23 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders Assessee in respect of on-money declared by the Assessee and its sister concern. In this regard the arguments