70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad)

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

…iscussion was made. The Ld. CIT-DR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Horizon Investment Company Ltd. vs CIT (ITA No.1593/Mum/2013), order dated 27/06/2014 and another decision of the Tribunal in Arvee International vs Addl. CIT (2006) 101 ITD 495; (2006) 8 SOT 452 (Mum. Trib.) 2.3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before adverting further, it is our bounded duty to examine section 263 of the 5 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. Act, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference and analysis:- “263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

…ar as, 295 ITR 282 (SC) is concerned, it was contended that it is against the assessee and speaking order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 386 ITR 162, (2017) 77 taxman.com 285 (SC), Arvee International vs Addl. CIT 101 ITD 495 (ITAT) (Bom.) Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl.CIT & Ors. 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and in Kapil Ratan Associates vs CIT 69 SOT 188 (Bom.) order dated 14/01/2015. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that from computation of taxable income sheet enclosed with the return, it was fo…

Axcel Global Services, Mumbai vs. CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal: (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Axcel Global Services Vs. The Cit 13 Prabhat Palace, Behind Laxmi Bhawan Aayakar Bhavan Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle West M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 056 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaofa1550D Mumbai – 400 056 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…ation of mind. He places reliance on the following decision in support of his submissions. (a) Geosoft Technologies (Trivandrum) Ltd. Vs. CIT [41 taxmann.com 428 (Ker)] (b) PV Sreenijin Vs. CIT [47 taxmann.com 61 (Ker)] (c) Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT [101 ITD 495 (Mum)] (d) Crompton Greaves Ltd., Vs. CIT [ITA No.1994/Mum/2013 and ITA No.2836/Mum/2014 dt.01.02.2015] 7 M/s Axcel Global Services ITA No.2446/Mum/2014, A.Y.2009-10 (e) Alka Rajesh Agarwal Vs. CIT [ITA No.5007/Mum/2009 dated 05.12.2012] 8. In the rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submits that the case laws relied on by the Ld. DR hav…

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

…t only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. DR for Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) and the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Arvee International Vs ACIT (2006) 101 ITD 495(Mumbai). 5. We have considered the rival contention of ld. AR of the parties and perused the order of AO as well as the order passed by ld Pr. Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act. In the return of income, the assessee claimed Gain of Rs. 7,30,30,890/- on sale of agricultural land and claimed exemption from tax. The assessment order u/s 143(3) passed…

Trans Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…efore, CIT rightly set aside the order in question. ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on following decisions: ITA Nos.3567 & 3568/Mum/12 A.Ys. 07-08 & 09-10 [M/s. Trans Impex Pvt, Ltd. vs. CIT] Page 10 i. Arvee International vs. Addl.CIT [2006] 101 ITD 495 (Mumbai) ii. Horizon Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.1593/Mum/2013 for A.Y.2008-09 etc. 6. After going through rival submissions and material on record, we find that issue before us with regard to invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act on account of no action by Assessing Officer on the point of remission of liability to pay Rs.96,0…

Trans Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…efore, CIT rightly set aside the order in question. ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on following decisions: ITA Nos.3567 & 3568/Mum/12 A.Ys. 07-08 & 09-10 [M/s. Trans Impex Pvt, Ltd. vs. CIT] Page 10 i. Arvee International vs. Addl.CIT [2006] 101 ITD 495 (Mumbai) ii. Horizon Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.1593/Mum/2013 for A.Y.2008-09 etc. 6. After going through rival submissions and material on record, we find that issue before us with regard to invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act on account of no action by Assessing Officer on the point of remission of liability to pay Rs.96,0…

Sumitomo Chemical India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 3, Mumbai

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3381/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sumitomo Chemical India The Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 3 Vs. 6Th Floor, Moti Mahal, 195, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, J. Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs3750L

…d on the point of leave encashment. In the similar situation the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has passed the order in case of Horizon Investment Co. Ltd. in ITA No.1593/Mum/2013 and in case of Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT Rg 19(1) [2006] 101 ITD 495(Mum)[2006] 8 SOT 452 (Mum). It is categorically held in the above mentioned law that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without due application of mind was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. The facts and circumstances of the present case are quite similar…

Sneha Bimal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…vil Appeal No.5009 of 2016 (arising out of SLP C ) No.11621 of 2009) order dated 11.5.2016 (Supreme Court) ii) Horizon Investment Co.Ltd V/s CIT in ITA No.1593/Mum/2013 (AY- 2008-09) dated 27.6.2014 Mumbai Tribunal. ii) Arvee International V/s Addl.CIT (2006) 101 ITD 495 (Mum). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the orders of authorities below and case laws relied upon by the rival parties. We find from the page No.36 of the paper book which is a letter of allotment dated 27.11.2006 accompanying the schedule of payment as filed at page 39 of the paper book reveals…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…espect to one time settlement with the Bank. Thus, the A.O. has not considered the plea of the assessee company before finalizing the assessment order. The ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the ITAT,Mumbai in the case of Arvee International v. ACIT, [2006] 101 ITD 495 (Mum), Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ess Ess Kay Engineering Company Private Limited v. CIT (2002) 247 ITR 818 (SC), Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of ALA Firm v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 622(Mad.) , Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Revathy CP Equipment Limited v. DCIT (2000) 241 ITR 856(Mad.) and in the case of…

Udaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…received by the assessee-HUF on transfer of tenancy rights. It is merely the income from renting out of the house property and ld CIT DR relied upon 249 ITR 265(supra) & the decision in Aarvee ITA 7490/Mum/12 & 11 ITA 7491/Mum/2012 International in (2006) 101 ITD 495 (Mum. Trib.) & Horizon Investment Company Limited decision in ITA 1593/Mum/13 and also upon decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd(supra) and submitted that there is no application of mind / in- adequate inquiry by the AO . The Ld. CIT DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Limited (2012…

Sujaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…received by the assessee-HUF on transfer of tenancy rights. It is merely the income from renting out of the house property and ld CIT DR relied upon 249 ITR 265(supra) & the decision in Aarvee ITA 7490/Mum/12 & 11 ITA 7491/Mum/2012 International in (2006) 101 ITD 495 (Mum. Trib.) & Horizon Investment Company Limited decision in ITA 1593/Mum/13 and also upon decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd(supra) and submitted that there is no application of mind / in- adequate inquiry by the AO . The Ld. CIT DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Limited (2012…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

…erprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105 14. ITD 59915. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. v. C1T (1996) e) 220 ITR 456 (De/) held as under: 'An Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an Investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

…erprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105 14. ITD 59915. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. v. C1T (1996) e) 220 ITR 456 (De/) held as under: 'An Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an Investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

…erprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105 14. ITD 59915. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. v. C1T (1996) e) 220 ITR 456 (De/) held as under: 'An Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an Investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for…

Vidyasagar Enterprises LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2653/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Vidyasagar Enterprises Llp The Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax 13 (Formerly Vidyasagar Investments Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Private Limited) Mumbai 400020. 6Th Floor, Business Park, S V Road, V. Chincholi Phatak, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1066B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G M Doss

…held by the CIT in his orders dated 26th March 2015 u/s 263 of the Act . The Ld. DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Limited v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC) and Mumbai Tribunal in Arvee International v. Addl. CIT (2006) 101 ITD 495(Mum.) and also upon the judgment of Hon’ble Karnatka High Court in CIT v. Infosys Technologies Limited (2012) 17 taxmann.com 203(Kar.) as well judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Jagdsih Kumar Gulati v. CIT (2004)139 Taxmann 369(All.) to contend that orders u/s 263 of the Act are proper and legal as the AO has not verified the cost of con…