CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia

143 ITR 486High Court1983#5209 most cited
23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also reported as

15 Taxmann 345

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 154Section 1908 - Order XLISection 1908: Order 41 Rule 27Section 1961 - Section 40A(2)Section 1961: Section 80-IA(10)Section 1963 - Rule 29

Issues it is cited on

explanation to section 37section 92ca(1)far analysisadmission of additional evidenceintangible assetstransactional net margin methodarm's length pricecomparable companiessection 92camost appropriate methodsection 92ca(3)section 92c

Judgments citing CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia

MOHAMMAD ZUBER IBRHIM PATEL,TALOJA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 469/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 147Section 148

…public and allowing of production of additional\nevidence is in the discretion of the Tribunal. The said\ndiscretion however, is to be exercised judicially and not\narbitrarily. As held by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of\nCIT v. Kum. Satya Setia [1983] 143 ITR 486 1, it is within\nthe discretion of the appellate authority to allow production\nof additional evidence if the said authority requires any\ndocument to enable it to pass orders or for any other\nsubstantial cause. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding\nbody under the scheme of the Income-tax Act and powers,\ntherefore, have necessarily to be exer…

MOHAMMAD ZUBER IBRHIM PATEL,TALOJA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 468/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016
Section 147Section 148

…public and allowing of production of additional\nevidence is in the discretion of the Tribunal. The said\ndiscretion however, is to be exercised judicially and not\narbitrarily. As held by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of\nCIT v. Kum. Satya Setia [1983] 143 ITR 486 1, it is within\nthe discretion of the appellate authority to allow production\nof additional evidence if the said authority requires any\ndocument to enable it to pass orders or for any other\nsubstantial cause. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding\nbody under the scheme of the Income-tax Act and powers,\ntherefore, have necessarily to be exer…

LUMINOUS TELEINFRA LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the application of the assessee for limited purpose

ITA 6997/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6997/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] M/s Luminous Teleinfra Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T [Now merged with Luminous Special Range - 05 Power Technologies Pvt Ltd New Delhi C – 56, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase - II, New Delhi PAN – AABCL 4552 A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr Adv Ms. Soumya Jain, CA Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 14.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 ORDER PER NAVEEN…

LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the application of the assessee for limited purpose

ITA 6996/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6996/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] M/s Luminous Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T C – 56, Mayapuri Industrial Area Special Range - 05 Phase - II, New Delhi New Delhi PAN – AAACS 3561 K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr Adv Ms. Soumya Jain, CA Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 14.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This applicatio…

RAM RAGHUNATH KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4474/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Ram Raghunath Kadam Vs. Income Tax Officer- 34(2)(2) 2476 Building No. 35 C-41 To 43 G Block Uday Chs, Tank Road Bandra Kurla Complex Kala Chowki, Abhyudaya Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Nagar, Mumbai 400033 Pan/Gir No. : Aebpk5370A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…5 ITA No.4474/Mum/2023 A.Y.2017-18 Ram Raghunah Kadam v. ITO we admit the same as additional evidence under Rule 29 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 after also considering the judicial pronouncements referred to by the ld. Counsel in the case of CIT vs. Satya Setia 143 ITR 486 and CIT vs. G.V. Rattiah and Co. 256 ITR 351 for deciding the case of the assessee on merit. 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. Heard both the side and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment the AO treated the cash deposit of Rs.32,13,500/- n the bank account of the asse…

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3525/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3447/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) American Express Services India Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 1 (1), Metropolitan Saket, New Delhi. 7th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (PAN : AABCT0555T) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date of Order : 09.01.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM Y…

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3447/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3447/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) American Express Services India Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 1 (1), Metropolitan Saket, New Delhi. 7th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (PAN : AABCT0555T) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date of Order : 09.01.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM Y…

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee be considered allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3524/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: PendingITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2004-05 American Express Services India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Metropolitan, Saket, Circle-1(1), 7Th Floor, Office Block, New Delhi. District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aabct0555D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Shri Parth, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

…and allowing of production of additional evidence is in the discretion of the Tribunal. The said discretion, however, is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. As held by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT V. Kum. Satya Setia (1983) 143 ITR 486, it is within the discretion of the appellate authority to allow production of additional evidence if the said authority requires any document to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause. The Tribunal is the final fact finding body under the scheme of the 14 Income Tax Act, 1961 and powers, therefore, have necessarily to be exe…

M/S CHEMESTER FOOD INDUSTRY,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-III, AMRITSAR

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

ITA 583/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)

…al has to exercise its power vested in it under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by applying its judicial mind as the said power is given with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. In CIT vs. Kum Satya Setia (1983) 143 ITR 486 (MP) and Orissa States Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR (AT) 20 (Ctk) it has been held that where Tribunal thinks that evidence sought to be admitted is material for deciding the issue, it can be admitted though not produced before the lower authorities and the discretion of the Tribunal will not be interfered with unless e…

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 971/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. ChandniFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 69CSection 92C

…compile self-explanatory detailed reconciliation statements alongwith ledger accounts for 7 parties. The Appellant prays that the additional evidence be admitted. Reliance in this regard was placed in the decision in the case of CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia [1983] 143 ITR 486 (MP). 21. In response Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Appellant had been granted sufficient time to file documents/details before Assessing Officer and the DRP and therefore, the additional evidence should not be admitted. 22. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. It is admitted position…

M/S ALCON LABORATORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3376/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)

…laced reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- IT(TP)A No.2889/Bang/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3376/Bang/2018 M/s. Alcon Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 49 a)Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia (143 ITR 486), has held that under rule 29 of the Rules, it was within the discretion of the Tribunal to allow the production of additional evidence and even if there was a failure to produce the documents before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the interest of justice to allow the productio…

ALCON LABORATORIES (INDIA0 PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2889/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)

…laced reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- IT(TP)A No.2889/Bang/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3376/Bang/2018 M/s. Alcon Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 49 a)Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia (143 ITR 486), has held that under rule 29 of the Rules, it was within the discretion of the Tribunal to allow the production of additional evidence and even if there was a failure to produce the documents before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the interest of justice to allow the productio…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S ASTRAZENCA PHARMA INDIA LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

…pute and for substantial justice, the same may be taken on record. In support of the additional evidence, the learned AR placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- a)Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia (143 ITR 486), has held that under rule 29 of the Rules, it was within the discretion of the Tribunal to allow the production of additional evidence and even if there was a failure to produce the documents before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the interest of justice to allow the productio…

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

…pute and for substantial justice, the same may be taken on record. In support of the additional evidence, the learned AR placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- a)Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia (143 ITR 486), has held that under rule 29 of the Rules, it was within the discretion of the Tribunal to allow the production of additional evidence and even if there was a failure to produce the documents before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the interest of justice to allow the productio…

LODHA CONSTRUCTON ( DOMBIVALI ) NOW MERGED WITH LODHA DEVLOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result these grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical

ITA 7074/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhlodha Construction (Dombivali), Dcit Central Circle-7(3) Now Merged With Lodha Room No. 655, Aayakar Developers Pvt. Ltd.), 412, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400020. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabfl3409M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Sathe (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald (Sr.Dr)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…l evidence has a direct bearing on the issue involved in the present appeal and may be admitted. In the application for admission of additional evidence, the assessee has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Satya Setia (143 ITR 486) and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. G.V. Rattiah and Co. (256 ITR 351). Along with the application, the assessee has filed charts showing the details of miscellaneous receipts from customer, bank charges (income), cancellation charges, details of sundry creditor and other balance written off. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee submits…

CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani/For Respondent: Saurabh Deshpande /
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…d that the said document could not be produced before the authorities below as it took a lot of time for retrieving the data and collating the same. The Ld. counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kum. Satya Setia 143 ITR 486 (MP) and the assessee the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.ITA No 2077, 2061 and 2065 of 2010 submitted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to allow the production of additional evidence even if the assessee has failed to produce the same before the AO or the first appellate authority. The Ld. counsel further sub…

LINE-ONE TRADING PVT. LTD.,THANE vs. ITO - 2(5) THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2847/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Line-One Trading Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Pvt. Ltd. 601, Hitakshi Mumbai. Vs. Heights, Indra Lok Phase-6, Bhayander East, Thane-401105 Pan No. Aaccl2001K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Line-one Trading Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Pvt. Ltd. 601, Hitakshi Mumbai. Vs. Heights, Indra Lok Phase-6, Bhayander East, Thane-401105 PAN No. AACCL2001K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, AR Revenue by : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR Date of Hearing : 14/11/2018 Date of pronouncement : 30/01/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The ap…

SHARAD KUMAR SARAF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…td. for AY 2007-08 Then the Ld. counsels refer to Rule 30 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 which prescribe circumstances under which, additional evidence could be admitted before the Tribunal. Also reliance is placed by them on the decision in CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia 143 ITR 486 (MP), UOP LLC v. Addl. DIT 108 ITD 186 (Delhi-ITAT) and ITO & Others reported in 112 ITR 423 (Cal). Thus it is submitted that the additional evidence submitted before the Tribunal are in form of supporting documents for the primary claim of the appellant that the credit card expenses were incurred for business purpose of the employer and fringe b…

M/S. TAEGU TEC INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1337/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sue involved in the appeal and reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Text Hundred India 351 ITR 57 and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kum. Satya Setia 143 ITR 486(M.P.). Thus he prayed that the adjustment made by the TPO should be deleted. On other hand the learned DR placed reliance on the order of the lower authorities. Page 7 of 11 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the TPO is justified in…

WABAN SOFTWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2011/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2011/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Waban Software Pvt.Ltd. Dcit-Range-8(3) C/O. Oracle India Pvt.Ltd. Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Silver Metropolis, Opp. Bimbisar Nagar, Old Jay Coach Vs. Compound, Western Express Highway,Goregaon-(E),Mumbai-400 063. Pan:Aaacw 5953 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Purshottam Kumar Assessee By: S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:12.04.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 13.12.2013 Of Cit(A)-18, Mumbai The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Handling Software Development Activities,Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 14.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.48.42 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 16.01.2013 Determining Income Of The Assessee At Rs.79.02 Lakhs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar
Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “जी मुंबई जी जी” खंडपीठ जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2011/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष"…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2