CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

Valuable Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

…presentative for the Revenue reiterated the objection taken by the CIT(Appeals), which we have adverted to earlier. 6. We have considered the rival stands. In the case of CIT vs. Aimil Limited, 321 ITR 508 (Del) as also in the case of Ghatge Patil Transport, 368 ITR 749(Bom), the Hon’ble Delhi and Bombay High Courts have held that even employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund paid before due date of filing of return of income does not suffer the (Assessment Year : 2010-11) disallowance under section 43B of the Act. In the present case, the actual dates of payment adopted by the lower authorities to make th…

ITO 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Meta Copper & Alloys Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed”

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaमेटा कॉपर अँड अँ"लोयस "ल"मटेड Income Tax Officer –3(2)(2), Vs R. No.473, Aayakar Bhavan, M/S Meta Copper & Alloys Ltd, M K Road, Mumbai -400 020 36-37, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 Pan: Aaacm 7357 B अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant By "ीम"त राजे"वर" मोटवानी : Smt Rajeshwari Motwani Respondent By : कोई नह"ं None सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 03-05-2016 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-05-2016

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI "ी बी आर भा"करन, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER मेटा कॉपर अँड अँ"लोयस "ल"मटेड Income Tax Officer –3(2)(2), Vs R. No.473, Aayakar Bhavan, M/s Meta Copper & Alloys Ltd, M K Road, Mumbai -400 020 36-37, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 PAN: AAACM 7357 B अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant by "ीम"त राजे"वर" मोटवानी : Smt Rajeshwari Motwani Respondent by : कोई नह"ं None सुनवाईक"तार"ख /D…

ACIT Cir 5(3), Mumbai vs. Shree Raj Travels & Tour Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla"ी राज "ावे"स अँड टूरस "ल"मटेड Acit, Circle 5(3), Vs Room No. 563, Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Chowpaty View Building, Mumbai-400 020 Ground Floor, Sukh Nagar, S V P Road, Opera House, Mumbai -400 007 Pan: Aaecs 9760 N अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant By Shri A K Nayak : Respondent By : None सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2016 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-04-2016

…been made much within the due date of filing of return of income. We find that now this issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., reported in [2014] 368 ITR 749 wherein the Hon’ble High Court on the issue of payment of employees contribution towards EPF and ESIC has held that, the payment has been made before the due date of furnishing of return of income then same should be allowed under section 43B. In the case before the Hon’ble Court was exactly same question of law which has been answered in favour…

Axis Sales Ltd ( Now Known As Axis Securities and Sale Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 M/S Axis Sales Limited (Later Dcit, Known As Axis Securities Circle-3(1), बनाम/ & Sale Limited) (And Now Room No.607 Vs. Known As Axis Capital Limited), Aayakar Bhavan, Axis House, 8Th Floor, M.K.Road, Wadia International Centre, Mumbai-400020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan No.Aaacu8367M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Axis Sales Limited (Later Known As Axis Securities & Sale Limited) (And Now Known As Axis Capital Limited), Assessment Year-2007-08

…the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Hitesh Joshi alongwith Shri Vipul K. Mody, contended that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable being the tax involved is below prescribed monetary limit and also on merit by placing reliance upon the decision in 368 ITR 749 (Bom.). This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR, Ms. Radha Katyal Narang. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the fact, that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit, as contained in CBDT instruction No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015 (F…

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

…ue date of filing of the income tax return. 53. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is now squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Ghatghe Patil Transport Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. In this view of the matter, the impugned disallowance is hereby deleted. 54. Ground no. 3 is thus allowed. 55. Ground no. 4, with respect to section 14A disallowance of Rs 21,44,477, is not pressed before us. I.T.A. No. 1946/Mum/2014 I.T.A. Nos. 1172 and 1222/Mum/2015 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11 Page 25 of 32 56. Ground no. 4 is…

DCIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merck Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

…ue date of filing of the income tax return. 53. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is now squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Ghatghe Patil Transport Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. In this view of the matter, the impugned disallowance is hereby deleted. 54. Ground no. 3 is thus allowed. 55. Ground no. 4, with respect to section 14A disallowance of Rs 21,44,477, is not pressed before us. I.T.A. No. 1946/Mum/2014 I.T.A. Nos. 1172 and 1222/Mum/2015 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11 Page 25 of 32 56. Ground no. 4 is…

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

…ue date of filing of the income tax return. 53. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is now squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Ghatghe Patil Transport Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. In this view of the matter, the impugned disallowance is hereby deleted. 54. Ground no. 3 is thus allowed. 55. Ground no. 4, with respect to section 14A disallowance of Rs 21,44,477, is not pressed before us. I.T.A. No. 1946/Mum/2014 I.T.A. Nos. 1172 and 1222/Mum/2015 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11 Page 25 of 32 56. Ground no. 4 is…

Lee & Muirhead P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 7435 /Mum/2011 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Lee & Murihead Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Oricon House, 2Nd Floor Tax -Range 2(2) बनधम/ Room No. 548, 5Th Floor 12-K, Dubhash Marg, Vs. Fort Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai 400023. Mumbai 400020. (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 7849/Mum/2011 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Lee & Murihead Pvt. Ltd. Oricon House, 2Nd Floor Tax (Osd) Circle 2(2), बनधम/ Room No. 545, 5Th Floor 12-K, Dubhash Marg Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Fort, Mumbai 400020. Mumbai 400023. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0918M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6518/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Lee & Murihead Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Oricon House, 2Nd Floor Tax -Range 2(2) बनधम/ Room No. 548, 5Th Floor 12-K, Dubhash Marg, Vs. Fort Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai 400023. Mumbai 400020. (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaaclo918M & Other Two Appeals.

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ऐ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री अमभत शुक्रा, न्मायमक सदस्म एवं श्री याजेश कुभाय, रेखा सदस्म के सभक्ष । BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 7435 /Mum/2011 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Lee & Murihead Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of Income Oricon House, 2nd Floor Tax -Range 2(2) बनधम/ Room No. 548, 5th Floor 12-K, Dubhash Marg, Vs. Fort Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai 400023. Mumbai 400020. (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 7849/Mum/2011 (ननधधारण वषा / Ass…

ACIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tytan Organics P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3670/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बनाम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Tytan Organics Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Sunama House, Tax, 1(3), Room No.540/564, Vs. 5Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, August Kranti Marg, M K Road, Kemps Corner, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross Objection No.87/Mum/2012 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.3670/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बनाम/ M/S Tytan Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-400026 1(3), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…ted that the assessee had paid these amounts before the due date for filing the return of income. Accordingly he submitted that the same is allowable as deduction as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom). In view of the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee in the light of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.(supra). 8. In the result, the appeal…