MAHIM VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SOCIETY LTD.,,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, THANE

In the result we allow the ground no

d) of sec. 80P (2) of the Act would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Karnataka High Court has discussed the provisions of section BOP as a whole and held that it is a character and nature of income which determines the taxability or exemption from taxability. In these cases the surplus fund which

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

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

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

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-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

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

D-Mat account). Thus, the assets of Rs.7.84 Crores was exchanged for another asset for Rs.4.55 Crores and hence the loss of Rs.3.29 Crores, which is nothing but a business loss and deserves to be allowed. 18. The reasons for denial of the claim have been considered while deciding Ground Nos. 1 to 5 (supra) and for our detailed reasoning

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

D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the Assessee as well as the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 53, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 23.03.2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal

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

D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the Assessee as well as the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 53, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 23.03.2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal