Mascon Global Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

37 SOT 202Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#12741 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 12AB Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 29 Section 80G Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidence section 131 section 142(1)section 144 company document interest section 14

Judgments citing Mascon Global Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

DEVI ANUSUIYA VIDYA SANSTHAN,1812 A B ROAD ,LASUDIA MORI DEWAS NAKA INDORE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 924/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 25Section 80G

…revenue as to whether it is necessary in Rule 29 to make a format written application? The Ld. DR could not show any such requirement. At this stage, we may make a useful reference to Para No. 10 of the decision of Third Member in Mascon Global Ltd. Vs. ACIT 37 SOT 202 (Chennai) (TM): “10. ….. The other objection of the Ld. Judicial Member is that there is no formal application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of the additional evidence. On going through the Rule, I do not find any requirement therein that there should be a formal written application before the Tribunal for Page 5 of 7 Devi Anusui…

DEVI ANUSUIYA VIDYA SANSTHAN,A B ROAD, LASUDIA MORI DEWAK NAKA vs. CIT EXEMTION, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 830/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 25Section 80G

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1531/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-23 cuke Oliria Foods and Beverages Income Tax Officer, Vs. Limited, A-130(H) First Floor, Ward 1(2), Jaipur Road No. 9D VKI Area, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACC09015G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv…

SRI. VIVEK RAMCHANDRA KAWADE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE-27(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the asessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit -27(3) Shri Vivek Ramchandra Room No. 423, 4Th Kawade Floor, Tower No. 6, B-11, Sita Estate, Mahul Vashi Rly Stn, Vashi Road, Chembur, Mumbai – Navi Mumbai – 400 400074. 703. Pan/Gir No. Bgtpk5019H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

…ies. It was also submitted that these evidences goes to the roots of the case and are relevant to decide the controversy in question. Further, Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Mascon Global Ltd Vs ACIT (2010) 37 SOT 202 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram Vs CIT, (2014) 44 taxman.com, 367 (SC) and pleaded for admission of additional evidence. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR contested the application filed by the assessee for leading additional evidence and submitted that proper and due opportunities were granted to the assessee but the…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…'s claim for deduction of a sum and if was relevant to decide claim of assessee, same was to be admitted for substantial cause and to enable tribunal to pass appropriate order in matter. (vii) Mascon Global Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 37 SOT 202 (Chennai) Rule 29 permits the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence for any substantial cause. In view of the aforesaid facts and decisions the Hon'ble ITAT is requested to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the shape of affidavits paper book page no. 181 to 184 and decide the case favourably.” 7. Per contra, the ld. DR re…

ITO 11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. ZENTA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1802/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito 11(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., Room No.429, 4Th Floor 6Th Floor, Unit No.601, Aayakar Bhavan Nomura Mumbai – 20 Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.164/Mum/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1802/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito 11(3)(4) 4Th Floor, Tower Ii Room No.429, 4Th Floor Phase Ii, Logitech Park Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ito 11(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., Room No.429, 4Th Floor 6Th Floor, Unit No.601, Aayakar Bhavan Nomura, Hiranandani Mumbai – 400020 Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.85/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.795/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2011-12) M/S. Accenture Solutions Vs. Ito 11(3)(4) Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan As Zenta Pvt. Ltd.,) Mumbai – 400020 M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Tower Ii Phase Ii, Logitech Park Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Income Tax Officer 3(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Accenture Solutions Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Tower Ii (Now Assessed Under Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Phase Ii, Logitech Park 11(3)(2), Room No.427 Andheri Kurla Road Aayakar Bhavan Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.222/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1623/Mum/2014) (Assessment Year :2009-10) M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito 3(3)(4) 4Th Floor, Tower Ii Room No.672, Phase Ii, Logitech Park Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ccording to the ld. AR, said interest is only compensatory in nature and accordingly allowable as deduction. In support of this, the ld. AR placed reliance on the third member decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Mascon Global Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 37 SOT 202 (Chennai)(TM) dated 26/08/2009 wherein it was held as under:- “11. So far as the main issue is concerned, that is regarding the allowability of the interest, I am unable to agree with the ld. Judicial Member that the assessee's claim should be dismissed. As already noted by me, the correct break up of the interest requires to be considered in pro…

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR VACHHRAJ DHOLAKIA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for the 12

ITA 157/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Samir Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar – CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 56(2)

…em it fit and appropriate to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee for the consideration of the AO. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Mascon Global Limited vs ACIT reported in 37 SOT 202 wherein, it was held as under: “The other objection of the Judicial Member was that there was no formal application under rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of the additional evidence. On going through the rule, no requirement was found therein that there should be a formal written application before the Tribunal for admission of the addition…

SHREENATH HERITAGE LIQUOR PVT. LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

ITA 279/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate and Ms. Eisha Kanoongo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR

Section 115BSection 68

…s claim for deduction of a sum and if was relevant to decide claim of assessee, same was to be admitted for substantial cause and to enable tribunal to pass appropriate order in matter. Mascon Global Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income (vii) Tax (2010) 37 SOT 202 (Chennai) - Rule 29 permits the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence for any substantial cause. In view of the aforesaid facts and decisions the Hon'ble ITAT is requested to admit the additional evidence and decide the case favourably.’’. 4.2 The ld. DR opposed the application of the assessee as to filing of additional evidence under rule 29…