ACIT v. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd.

Lata Prakash Maradia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

…de in the affidavit are to be the other side, the averments made in the affidavit are to be accepted as true. 2.3. The coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in 2.3. The coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. JCIT [2005] 92 ITD 11 (Mum) has observed that in the absence of [2005] 92 ITD 11 (Mum) has observed that in the absence of [2005] 92 ITD 11 (Mum) has observed that in the absence of any counter affidavit by the Revenue, delay in filing the appeal any counter affidavit by the Revenue, delay in filing the appeal any counter affidavit by the Revenue, delay in filing the ap…

Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 27(3)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

…iciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 3.3 The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. JCIT (2005) 92 ITD 11 has condoned the delay for one of the reason that Revenue had not filed any counter 8 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd affidavit opposing the application for condonation of the delay. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Sudha Rani Debi AIR 1978 SC 537 held that non-filing of affidavit in opposition to an applica…

Rahul Ramesh Ektare, Thane vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rahul Ramesh Ektare Circle 5(3)(1) 1101, Dahila, Runwal Garden City, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Balkum, Balukum S.O., Thane, Vs. Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400608 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aafpe 5470 R Appellant Respondent

…iciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 3.3 The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. JCIT (2005) 92 ITD 11 has condoned the delay for one of the reason that Revenue had not filed any counter affidavit opposing the application for condonation of the delay. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Sudha Rani Debi AIR 1978 SC 537 held that non-filing of affidavit in opposition to an application for condonation of the delay may be suf…

Anand Govind Parab, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Anand Govind Parab Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Flat No. 12, C-11, 1St Floor, Income Tax Department Gayatri Cps Sector, Sanpada, Vs. Ito Ward 34(2)(2) G Block, Bkc Navi Mumbai-400 705 Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051

…ause for non filing of the appeal on time. In our opinion, the assessee was prevented by sufficient reasons for not presenting the appeal on time. Further, we note that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. JCIT (2005) 92 ITD 11 has condoned the delay for one of the reason that the Revenue had not filed any counter affidavit opposing the application for condonation of the delay. In the instance case also no such counter affidavit on behalf of the Revenue opposing the condonation of the delay has been filed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandhya Rani Sarkar v.…

Purnima Shetty, United Arab Emirates vs. Income-Tax Officer - 26(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumr Chauhan

…Debi AIR 1978 SC 537 held that non-filing of affidavit in opposition to an application for condonation of the delay may be sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. JCIT (2005) 92 ITD 11 has accordingly, condoned the delay of more than 180 days for one of the reason that Revenue had not filed any counter affidavit opposing the application for condonation of the delay. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v Dy. CIT (2006) 154 Taxman 377/280 ITR 357 held that in order to advance substantial justice…

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

…recoupment of costs ought not to be excluded while computing the profit of the eligible undertaking. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions: (a) CIT vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd (383 ITR 217)(SC) (b) ACIT vs. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. (92 ITD 11) (Cuttack) (c) ACIT vs Vinati Organics Ltd (36 CCH 123) (Mum) (d) ACIT vs Prakash L Shah (115 ITD 167) (Mum SB) (Now known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) 38. Further, it is submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has in principle agreed that the items at para 32 above should be considered as part of the profit of the undertaking. However, the Ld. CIT (A) has…

Albatross Cfs P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Albatross Inland-Ports The Ito 10(2)(1), Private Limited Mumbai Formerly M/S Albatross - Cfs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Geet Mala Building, 4Th Floor, Next To Shah Industrial Estate, Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Pan: Aaeca8052B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Albatross Inland Ports - The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax – 10 (2), 4Th Floor, Geetmala Building Mumbai Next To Shah Industrial Estate, Vs. Deonar, Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Pan: Aaeca8052B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/10/2018

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Albatross Inland-Ports The ITO 10(2)(1), Private Limited Mumbai Formerly M/s Albatross - CFS Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Geet Mala Building, 4th Floor, Next to Shah Industrial Estate, Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 PAN: AAECA8052B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Albatross Inland Ports - The Assistant Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax – 10 (2), 4th Floor, Geetmala Building Mumbai Next to Shah Industrial Estate, Vs. Deonar, Govandi (East), Mumbai-…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2003-04 Dcit-3(2), Kotak Mahindra Asset Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Management Co. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 5A, 5Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. M.K.Road, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aaack5576C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Assessment Year-2004-05 Dcit-3(2), Kotak Mahindra Asset Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Management Co. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 5A, 5Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. M.K.Road, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aaack5576C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Assessment Year-2004-05

…is evident from para 15 of the impugned order), it was claimed that no direct expenses were attributed to earn exempt income. Reliance was also placed upon the Delhi Bench Tribunal decision in Motor and General Finance Ltd. (90 ITD 449) and Maruti Udyog Ltd. 92 ITD 11 and also the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Gherzi Eastern Ltd. 6562/94. We find that in para 16 of the impugned order, there is observation by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that “it is true that Assessing Officer has made adhoc disallowance which is not justified. It is necessary to evolve a system or basis for making disallowance u/s 1…

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Asset Mangagement Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The CIT (A)-III, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2003-04 Dcit-3(2), Kotak Mahindra Asset Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Management Co. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 5A, 5Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. M.K.Road, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aaack5576C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Assessment Year-2004-05 Dcit-3(2), Kotak Mahindra Asset Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Management Co. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 5A, 5Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. M.K.Road, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aaack5576C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Assessment Year-2004-05

…is evident from para 15 of the impugned order), it was claimed that no direct expenses were attributed to earn exempt income. Reliance was also placed upon the Delhi Bench Tribunal decision in Motor and General Finance Ltd. (90 ITD 449) and Maruti Udyog Ltd. 92 ITD 11 and also the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Gherzi Eastern Ltd. 6562/94. We find that in para 16 of the impugned order, there is observation by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that “it is true that Assessing Officer has made adhoc disallowance which is not justified. It is necessary to evolve a system or basis for making disallowance u/s 1…