Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT

ACIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Surya Ferrous Alloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the issue raised in the cross objections stand decided in favour of the Appellant by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. ACIT: [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay)[03-05- 2024]. It was submitted that in identical facts and circumstances notice, dated 27/08/2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act by the assessing officer for the Assessment Year 2015-16, pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal: [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)[04- 05-2022…

DCIT-14.1.1, Mumbai vs. Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Circle-14(1)(1) Vs. M/s. Amcor Flexibles Room No.432, 4th Floor India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Level 6, Tower 3, M.K.Road, Equiniox Business Park Mumbai – 400 020 CTS No.83/1, 19, LBS Road, Kurla(W)-400 070 PAN/GIR No.AAGCA0510J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date of Hearing 05/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been…

L.K. Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO Mum-W-(199)(91), Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2013-14

…erits as already the Assessing Officer had taken a view to add 5% of the amount by way of estimated Gross Profit (GP). The learned AR has placed reliance on the 4 L.K. Exports decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors, 464 ITR 430 (Bom). 6. The learned DR has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that there was an Audit report/objection which required addition of 100% of the amount of bogus purchases to be made. It is submitted that the addition could not have been restricted to 5% and, therefore, the addition of balance 95% is legal and proper as there was materi…

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kundan Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

…or 18 M/s. Kundan Jewellers purchase of stock. This issue had been considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Industries Ltd. (supra) Further Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2024) 464 ITR 430 had dealt with exactly with the same issue after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal. In facts of the present case, the time limit to issue notice u/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2014-15 had already expired before 01/04/2021 in view of erstwhile time limit of six years which had expired on 31/03/2021; whereas…

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(International Tax) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2751/Mum/2024

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2751/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 2(1)(2) Atlimus, 2101 21st Floor Pandurang Budhkar Marg Worli Mumbai - 400018 [PAN: AAICA3008P] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Anish Thacker & Shri Nishit Shah, A/R Revenue by: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hea…

Nisha Thomas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-Drp-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A. No. 2764/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Nisha Thomas CIT(A) DRP-2, Room No. 1, 28th Floor, Flat No. 203, A-10, Tejasvi Apartment, Saibaba Nagar, World Trade Centre-1, Vs. Mira Road (East), Cuffe Parade, Maharashtra-401107. Mumbai-400005. PAN : AKCPT1993K Assessee) : Respondent) Assessee/Appellant by : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR : 08.07.2024 Date of Hearing : 15.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the as…