Mumbai Vieshesh Films (P.) Ltd. v. DOT (Para-7)

101 ITD 85Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16395 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Mumbai Vieshesh Films (P.) Ltd. v. DOT (Para-7)

DCIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Indiawin Sports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is Allowed

ITA 59/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…mbai 255 4 KSS Ltd. (2016) vs DOT (para 6.2) 66 taxmann.com 97 ITAT Mumbai 5 Fairfield Atlas Ltd. Vs. ACIT (para 9) 3 taxmann.com 760 ITAT Mumbai 6 Vieshesh Films (P) Ltd vs. DOT (par() 7) 26 SOT 64 ITAT Mumbai 7 Intersil India Ltd. Vs. AddL. CIT (para 12-16) 101 ITD 85 ITAT Mumbai 8 Markwell Hose Industries (P) Ltd. 95 ITD 271 ITAT Mumbai 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any merit for the &allowance of 10% of the hospitality expenses On adhoc basis in the hands of the assessee being a corporate entity/artificial person." Similar relief has bee…

DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Indiawin Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4678/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Court House, 3rd Floor Central circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AADCR8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3rd Floor Central circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mum…

Indiawin Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4614/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Court House, 3rd Floor Central circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AADCR8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3rd Floor Central circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mum…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tm International Logistics Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 1914/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Respondent: Shri R. K. Kureel, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…not be ruled out. However, Ld. CIT(A) found that such an allegation was without any material and unsustainable. On this aspect, the assessee relied on the decisions reported in Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs. CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj) and Intersil India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 101 ITD 85 (Mum), and it is submitted that since the assessee is a corporate entity, there cannot be any personal expenditure. It is further submitted that in respect of AY 2005-06 the Ld. CIT(A) deleted such an addition based on ad hoc disallowance in the telephone expenses and the department has not preferred any appeal against such finding. On a careful c…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tm International Logistics Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 1513/KOL/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Respondent: Shri R. K. Kureel, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…not be ruled out. However, Ld. CIT(A) found that such an allegation was without any material and unsustainable. On this aspect, the assessee relied on the decisions reported in Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs. CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj) and Intersil India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 101 ITD 85 (Mum), and it is submitted that since the assessee is a corporate entity, there cannot be any personal expenditure. It is further submitted that in respect of AY 2005-06 the Ld. CIT(A) deleted such an addition based on ad hoc disallowance in the telephone expenses and the department has not preferred any appeal against such finding. On a careful c…

Mumbai Vieshesh Films (P.) Ltd. v. DOT (Para-7) (101 ITD 85) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax