Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu

ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai vs. Vishal Jayendra. Jhaveri, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

…ulging in any illegal activity, without being there any direct or even circumstantial evidence on record against him. 14. The next limb of argument of the learned DR, while relying upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Padma Sunder Rao” 255 ITR 147 (SC), has been that the court should not place reliance on the decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits to the factual situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. His contention is that one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. There is no doubt about the…

ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai vs. Vishal Jayendra. Jhaveri, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

…ulging in any illegal activity, without being there any direct or even circumstantial evidence on record against him. 14. The next limb of argument of the learned DR, while relying upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Padma Sunder Rao” 255 ITR 147 (SC), has been that the court should not place reliance on the decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits to the factual situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. His contention is that one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. There is no doubt about the…

DCIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Multi Screen Media P.Ltd ( Earlier Known As Set India P.Ltd), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.4471 To 73/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05,06-07 & 07-08 Dy.Cit-Central Circle-20 M/S. Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.402, 4Th Floor, (Earlier Known As Set India Pvt. Ltd.) 4Th Floor, Interface Building No.7 Assesseeyakar Bhavan, Mk Road Vs Mumbai-400 020. Off. Malad Link Road, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064. Pan: Aabcs 1728 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) C.O. No.180/Mum/2014 Arising Out Of आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.4471 /Mum/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 M/S. Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. Dy.Cit-Central Circle-20 Mumbai-400 064. Mumbai-400 020. Vs (""थ"/Respondent) ( ""ा"ेपक/Cross Objector) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Nishan Thakkar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh–Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2015 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2015 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 1961 की धारा 254 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench: Challenging The Orders Dt. 26.3.2013 Of The Cit(A)-39 Mumbai, The Ao Has Filed The Appeal For The Above Mentioned Three Ay.S.The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection For The Ay 2004- 05.The Effective Grounds Of Appeal Are Almost Similar For All The Years.Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience We Are Passing A Consolidated Order. A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Income Assessment Dt. Assessed Income 2004-05 1.11.2005 16,35,92,360/- 5.5.2010 38,42,98,940/- 2006-07 29.11.2006 35,82,44,496/- 4.12.2009 76,92,15,068/- 2007-08 31.10.2007 7,15,06,909/- 27.12.2010 75,17,97,261/-

…Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was stated that the Hon'ble High Court has not discussed the facts of the case as simply has stated that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. In this respect, reliance was placed on the decision reported in 255 ITR 147 (SC), wherein it was held that without discussing in detail, order passed was not justified. 8. In rejoinder, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the issue has been examined in detail in earlier years, which have been allowed in favour of the assessee. There is no new facts in the year under consideration and, therefore, stated that fact…