CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant. 23. We also find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Limited 372 ITR 303 observed that once Assessing Officer had called for the details and the same were filed by the assessee, merely because there was no discussion in the assessment order would not lead to assumption that Assessing Officer had not applied his mind. In the present case before us, many issues discussed by the Commissioner were not finally discussed in…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant. 23. We also find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Limited 372 ITR 303 observed that once Assessing Officer had called for the details and the same were filed by the assessee, merely because there was no discussion in the assessment order would not lead to assumption that Assessing Officer had not applied his mind. In the present case before us, many issues discussed by the Commissioner were not finally discussed in…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant. 23. We also find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Limited 372 ITR 303 observed that once Assessing Officer had called for the details and the same were filed by the assessee, merely because there was no discussion in the assessment order would not lead to assumption that Assessing Officer had not applied his mind. In the present case before us, many issues discussed by the Commissioner were not finally discussed in…

Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 1102, 11Th Floor, Parinee Room No. 259, Àayakar Bhavan Cresenzo, Plot No. C-38 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 G-Block, Behind Mca, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan - Aaacv6538K Appellant Respondent

…this proposition, the learned A.R. for the assessee, inter alia, placed reliance on the following judicial decisions: - i. CIT vs. Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 538 (Bom.); and ii. CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) 4.1.4 The learned A.R. for the assessee contended that since the issue of allocation of expenses in the Lote Unit in the two periods (01.04.2008 to 31.07.2008 and 01.08.2008 to 31.03.2009) was examined by the AO, the view taken by the AO was one possible view, with which the learned CIT did not agree, it is only a change of opinion and ther…

Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (TDS), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

…provisions of law and made the assessee liable for payment of TDS u/s.194C. As per ld. AR if two views are possible revision cannot be done and for this purpose he placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported at 295 ITR 282, 243 ITR 83 & 372 ITR 303. He further contended that provisions of Section 194 is not applicable because there was no element of profit for the reimbursement so made. For this purpose he placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court reported at 375 ITR 364. In support of the proposition that bank guarantee commission is not in the nature of interest, he pla…

Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (TDS), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

…provisions of law and made the assessee liable for payment of TDS u/s.194C. As per ld. AR if two views are possible revision cannot be done and for this purpose he placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported at 295 ITR 282, 243 ITR 83 & 372 ITR 303. He further contended that provisions of Section 194 is not applicable because there was no element of profit for the reimbursement so made. For this purpose he placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court reported at 375 ITR 364. In support of the proposition that bank guarantee commission is not in the nature of interest, he pla…

J.M Financial Institutional Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 3, Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Sanjay Garg & Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.2863/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" J.M. Financial Institutional Cit-3, Securities Ltd.(Successor Of Vs. Room No.612, Aayakar Jm Financial Ventures Ltd.) Bhavan M.K. Road 7Th Floor, Cnergy, Appasaheb Mumbai-400 020. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai-400 025. Pan No.Aaacm 7079 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri K.Sivaram & Sanjay Parikh Respondent By Shri Alok Johri-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2015 O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit-3 , Mumbai U/S. 263 For Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dt.10.3.2014. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “A) Revision U/S. 263 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai (Cit) Erred On Facts & In Law In Setting Aside The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer 3(2)(1), Mumbai (Ao) Holding That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Was Passed Without Application Of Mind Or Failed To Apply His Mind To The Case In All Perspective & Therefore The Order Was Erroneous. 2) The Learned Cit Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Ao Had Not Made Any Enquiry Before Accepting The Disallowance Made By The 2 Ita No.2863/M/14-Jm Financial Appellant U/S. 14A Of Rs. 1,54,50,477/- & Hence The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

…e assessee voluntarily in the return is justified as per law and facts. Keeping in view 4 ITA No.2863/M/14-JM Financial all the facts and circumstances of the case and taking help from the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Fine Jewellery (372 ITR 303), the order passed by the ld. CIT is contrary to law and facts and, therefore, it is hereby quashed. 5. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.01.2016. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले "यायालय म" "दनांकः 08 जनवरी, 2016 को क" गई । (संजय गग" /SANJAY GARG) (अशवनी तनेजा /ASHWANI TANEJA) "याियक सद"य/ JUDICIA…

A.V. Industries, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. A.V. Industries, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 201, Bhagtani Krishna, Tax -24(3), “A” Wing, Mumbai Vs. Dattaray Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaffa 1100L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R

…ew from that of the AO; where the AO has made enquiries in respect of the claim of the assessee, order cannot be said to be erroneous even if the details of enquiries made do not find mention in the assessment order. (i) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Mumbai-HC) (ii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi-HC) (iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi-HC) (iv) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay-HC) (v) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bombay-HC) (vi) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay-HC) (vii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs.…

Rajkumar Damani, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…l details with regard to interest as appearing on page 14 of the paper book and assessee has reached to the certain conclusion after appreciating the facts on record. We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom), wherein Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, sought details in respect of expenditure incurred for building brand. After examining the details holding part alone was in capital nature. In proceedings under provisions of 263 of Act, Assessing Officer’s order was not found erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue and rev…

Kartik Paper Products, Mumbai vs. CIT 17, Mumbai

…by the Commissioner by issuing notice under section 263 . The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal.”” While deciding the matter the Court had referred to the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in the matters of Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.(372 ITR 303) Idea Cellular Ltd.(301 ITR 407). Respectfully following the above judgments,we are,reversing the order of the CIT and deciding the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. फलतः िनधा"रती "ारा दािखल क" गई अपील मंजूर क" जाती है. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st,…