ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Capital Gain" in terms of Section 45(5)(b) of the IT Act r.w.s 48 of the IT Act. The balance interest paid to the appellant for any delay in payment of the compensation, from the date of acquisition of the property in pursuance to High Court/Supreme Court order, the same should be taxed under the head "Income from Other

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Capital Gain" in terms of 21 ITA No. 2270 & 3286 Mum 2016-Leila Advani Section 45(5)(b) of the IT Act r.w.s 48 of the IT Act. The balance interest paid to the appellant for any delay in payment of the compensation, from the date of acquisition of the property in pursuance to High Court/Supreme Court order, the same

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

194A of the Income-tax Act. To buttress this legal proposition, tax Act. To buttress this legal proposition, we hereby placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat we hereby placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat we hereby placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain. Under the facts and circumstances and considering the discussions referred above, the addition of Rs. 2.32 crore is not warranted, Ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed. We find the various new facts and submissions are emerged in the course of hearing and the agreement was filed for the first time. Therefore considering the facts, submissions

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain. Under the facts and circumstances and considering the discussions referred above, the addition of Rs. 2.32 crore is not warranted, Ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed. We find the various new facts and submissions are emerged in the course of hearing and the agreement was filed for the first time. Therefore considering the facts, submissions

TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Gain(LTCG) of Rs.18.53 lakhs, that both were claimed exempt u/s.10 of the Act, that the assessee on its own had disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.10.25 crores and had debited it to its P&L account.He asked the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section 14A r.w.r.8D should not be applied.After considering the explanation of the assessee