SANJAY CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,THANE vs. THE PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX 1, THANE

In the result we allow the ground no

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

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

transfer of FSI/ TDR and other asset be not taxed as capital gain and provision of section 50C be not invoked. The assessee society filed its detailed reply dated 27.12.2016 and objected about the taxability of capital gain as well as invoking section 50C. The reply filed by the assessee was not accepted by assessing officer and proceeded to make

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 ()

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer. As such the position that the Ld. DR cannot argue contrary to the Assessment Order is far too settled and does not deserve any further deliberation in the humble submission of the Assessee. 3. It is submitted that once it is so held that the income has been rightly considered under the head Profits and Gains

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

Transfer Pricing Officer. As such the position that the Ld. DR cannot argue contrary to the Assessment Order is far too settled and does not deserve any further deliberation in the humble submission of the Assessee. 3. It is submitted that once it is so held that the income has been rightly considered under the head Profits and Gains

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-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

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

4. Even though the assessee has raised a ground to the effect that the debts have been\nincurred in the course of business and the purpose for which the finance was used by\nthe other party is not relevant for allowing the deduction of debts written off and hence,\nsection 36(1)(vii) would apply, learned counsel appearing

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

4. Even though the assessee has raised a ground to the effect that the debts have been incurred in the course of business and the purpose for which the finance was used by the other party is not relevant for allowing the deduction of debts written off and hence, section 36(1)(vii) would apply, learned counsel appearing

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

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

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