Trib.) (para 7), Sonakshi Sinha v. CIT (Appeals)

BADA SAAB PROPERTIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 501 Krystal, 206 Waterfield Road, Tax, Bandra (West) Vs. Circle – 4(1)(1), Maharashtra – 400 050 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb1642A (Appellant) (Respondent) :

…Pvt. Ltd. 4. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. KGY Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. (156 taxman 18 Gujarat HC) 5. Surat Smart City Development Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (169 taxman 222 (Gujarat HC) 6. Sonakshi Sinha vs CIT(Appeals) [2022] [197 ITD 263] [Mumbai Tribunal]” 7. On perusal of the abovementioned decisions and the circular, it is observed that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat Smart City Development Ltd. (supra) had distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 stating that it was a case where…

DIPTI JAGDISH SATWANI,MUMBAI vs. AO, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…ts override the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. 7. After taking into consideration the above decisions of the Tribunal, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has, in Sonakshi Sinha vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [2022] 197 ITD 263 (Mumbai - Trib.)[20-09-2022], while dealing with a similar issue wherein the taxpayer filed Form No. 67 after the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), held as under : "012. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Short question In this appeal is whether assessee…

NEON PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Neon Properties Pvt. Ltd. Ito 13(1)(1) 501, Krystal, 206, Waterfield Aayakar Bhavan Road Bandra West Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 050. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaacn4266E Appellant Respondent

…notification of the error so made and the which was accepted vide Acknowledgement No. 836394390230125 [Snapshot attached below). The Appellant should not be penalised for mere procedural lapse which is squarely covered in the case of Sonakshi Sinha vs CIT(A) [197 ITD 263] wherein it was held that "while laying down a particular procedure, if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non-adherence to such procedure, the relevant provision is normally not taken to be mandatory and is considered to be purely directory". 2. From the above, it can be seen that the CPC and Ld. CIT(A) denied the benefit…

JAICO PUBLISHING HOUSE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…A.Y. 2019-20 Jaico Publishing House delayed filing of Form as it is not mandatory but a directory requirement and that DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. It further relied on Sonakshi Sinha vs CIT(A) (2022) 197 ITD 263 (Mum), Sumeet Subhash Narang vs DCIT (ITA no. 818/Mum/2024), Power and Energy Consultants India (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 159 taxmann.com 645 (Delhi-Trib.) and Rohan Hattangadi v. CIT(A) (ITA no. 1896/Mum/2022). 5.1 Per contra the ld. Departmental Representative has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 6. On careful consideratio…

VIPUL PARIMAL THAKORE,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

…ection 90 of the Act with regard to claim of FTC and in such cases Rule procedures are directory and not mandatory. The Ld. AR relied on the following judicial decisions: 1. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Vs. Pr.CIT [336 CTR 108(Madras) 2. Sonakshi Sinha Vs. CIT(A) [197 ITD 263 (MUM) 3. Shishir Agarwal Vs. ADIT (ITA No. 3029/Mum/2023) 9. We find Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No.29/Bang/2021 in M/s 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT-3(1)(1), Bangalore dated 07.03.2022 has considered the facts & law on the filing of Form. No. 67 and observed at Page 4 Para 4 to 8 of the order read as under: ITA No. 3595 & 3597/Mum/202…

MR JOHN ARUNKUMAR DIAZ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19 (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaljohn Arunkumar Diaz Vs. Dcit-19(1), 8A, Saahil, Room No. 203, 2 Nd Floor, 14 Altamount Road, Matrumandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aecpd6518C Appellant .. Respondent

…FTC and in such cases rule P a g e | 6 AY 2018-19 John Arunkumar Diaz procedures are directory and not mandatory. The Ld. AR relied on the following judicial decisions: 1. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Vs. Pr.CIT [336 CTR 108(Madras) 2. Sonakshi Sinha Vs. CIT(A) [197 ITD 263 (MUM) 3. Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna Vs/ The ITO (ITA No. 454/Bang/2021) (ITAT Banglore. 4. Nirmala Murli Relwani Vs/ ADIT (198 ITD 603) (Mumbai) 5. Anuj bhagwati Vs/ DCIT (ITA No. 1844 and 1845/Mum/2022) (ITAT Mumbai) 6. Rohan Hattangadi Vs. CIT(A) (ITA No. 1896/Mum/2022) (ITAT Mumbai) 7. Suresh Kumar Doodi Vs. ACIT(ITA No. 164/JP/2023) (ITAT Jaipur)…

DELOITTE INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI/CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Revised Return, Therefore The Appellant Ought To Have Been Allowed Entire Foreign Tax Relief Of Rs. 2,82,44,841. 1.3 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Rule 128 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 Does Not Provide For Disallowance Of Foreign Tax Relief In Case Of Filing Of Revised Form 67 Along With The Revised Return. 1.4 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Granted The Balance Foreign Tax Relief Amounting To Rs. 1,34,86,569 Since The Appellant Has Filed The Revised Form 67 Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Revised Return Of Income.

…isallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No. 67; (ii) filing of Form No. 67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. ii. Sonakshi Sinha vs CIT (2022] 197 ITD 263 (Mumbai ITAT) The assessee filed Form 67 on 20.01.2020 during the course of assessment proceedings. FTC credit was disallowed on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with Notification No. 9 dated 19 September 2017 as well as provisions of Rule 128(9). The Tribunal relying on the Bangalore Tribunal decision in case of Ms. Brinda Rama…