“Commissioner (Appeals)”

M/S. First Light Properties P. Ltd.(Earstwhile Known As M/S. Sumer Builders P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC, 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed and stand of AO is confirmed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As M/S Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacs7947P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Sh. Sandip Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

financial year - Assessing Officer disallowed expenses holding that nature of expenses was such that they had occurred and crystallized during earlier years - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal allowed said expenses on ground that as per accounting practice consistently followed by assessee, it had been debiting expenditure spill over

Wadia Ghandy & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 16 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

assessment year 2015–16. 2. The assessee, in the present appeal, has raised following grounds:– Wadia Ghandy & Co. ITA No.322/Mum./2022 “1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the Assessing Officer’s action of disallowance of depreciation on tenancy right of Rs.2,04,057. 2. The learned ... Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that tenancy rights were a form of license. 3. The only grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is with regard to the disallowance of depreciation on tenancy rights. 4. During the course of hearing, at the outset, the learned A.R. submitted that

Reehal Roadlines, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7118/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito Ward - 27(3)(2), M/S Reehal Roadlines, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 17, Ground Floor, Swastik बिधम/ 400 051 Chamber, Umarshi Bappa Vs. Chowk, Chember, Mumbai-400 071 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaefr0749M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Sankar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 20.05.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-25, Navi Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2015-16. The Sole Issue Raised In The Grounds Of 2

restricted the disallowance to 5% of expenses claimed on a purely ad–hoc basis. As could be seen from the statements filed before learned Commissioner (Appeals). The trip expenses as a percentage of the transportation receipt worked out in the range of 11% to 13% in assessment years

It0 25(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Minal Bharat Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5507/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Ito-25(3)(4) बिधम/ Minal Bharat Patel Room No. 603, C-10, 6Th 602, Boston House, Suren Vs. Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400093. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp5126G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vasudev Ginde & Kumar Kale Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai Dated 16.07.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 31.07.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,36,740/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act. The Authorized Representative Appeared Before The Ao & Filed Details During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessee Has Shown Short Term Capital Gain [Stcg] Of Rs.12,18,961/- & Long Term Capital Gain [Ltcg] Of Rs.17.01.85,391/- On Sale Of Shares. The Assessee Claimed Exemption U/S 10(38) Of The Act For The Entire Ltcg. Further, The Assessee Had Also Shown Ltcg Of Rs.1,00,31,538/- On Redemption

trustees and showing such placement as off-market sale. He, therefore, disallowed such loss by holding it as bogus. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) approved the view taken by the Assessing Officer. On second appeal, the Tribunal held as under;-. 12. Coming back to our context, we find that section

The Nab Workshop for the Blind, Mumbai vs. DCIT(CPC), Banglore, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalthe Nab Workshop For Vs. Dcit (Cpc) The Blind, 4Th Floor, Piramal Dr. Annie Besant Road, Chambers, Parel, Worli, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai – 400 030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt3397F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Gautam Nayak.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-1,Mumbai Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Rs.54,38,485, while making the intimation under section 143(1). The NAB Workshop for the Blind, Mumbai 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that not permitting such set off was at best debatable, and hence could not have been done under section 143(1). 3. The learned

Pranjali Enterprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ITO-5(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is dismissed being not maintainable

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 1523/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2017-18) Pranjali Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 53, Anand Bhuvan, Banganga Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006. Pan: Aaecp-7957-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer-5(2)(4), Room No.566, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section ... clause (23C) of section 10. (2) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he objects to any order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154 or section 250, direct the Assessing Officer

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP (Sucessor of Delotte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT -Cir 6(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.09/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu बिधम/ Acit-Circle 6(2)(1) India Llp (Successor Of Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Vs. Delotte Touche Tohmatsu Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, One International Centre, Churchgate, Mumbai- Tower-3, 32Nd Floor, 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfd7157J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Ms. R. M. Madhavi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Fact That The First Appellate Authority (Nfac) Has Passed The Order Without Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Had Filed All The Documents Sought For By The Cit(A) As Well As Had Filed Application Dated 23.01.2019 For Admission Of Additional Evidences (Refer Page No. 5 To 8 Of The Paper Book) As Well As Copy Of Letter Dated 25.10.2021 Uploaded On Income Tax E- Filing Portal On 09.10.2021 In Response To The Notices Dated 01.10.2021 & 11.10.2021 Respectively (Page No. 1 To 4 Of The Paper Book)

favour of the assessee. 3. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment orders, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Range-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

processing cost to the Head Office does not fall within the ambit of definition of “royalty” under Article 12(3)(a). 17. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Senior Counsel have strongly relied upon the decision of the co–ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Kotak Mahindra Primus ... covered within the scope of expression “royalty” under Article12(3)(a) of the India Belgium DTAA. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is affirmed. 20. Since we have already held that the data processing cost paid by the assessee does not amount to royalty, consequently, there

Kaushal Premchand Luhadiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1308/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Kaushal Premchand बिधम/ Ito-33(2)(2) Luhadiya Room No.846, 8Th Floor, Vs. 2201, A-Wing, Mit- Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Niketan Tower, 90Ft Road, C-43, G-Block, Bandra Near Sanskruti Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400051. East, Mumbai-400101. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawpl3781H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari S. Raheja Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai Dated 30.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Is An Ex-Parte Order. Further, He Also Brought To Our Notice That The Ao Has Also Passed An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter (‘The Act’)]. According To The Ld. Ar The Ex-Parte Orders Were Passed Because The Assessee Had Entrusted His Case To Shri Manoj Doshi Itp Who Mislead Him By Stating That He Is Appearing Before The Ao/Cit(A). However, Only Once The Assessee Received The Impugned Order, He Understood That The Itp Did Not Appear Before Ld Cit(A)

favour of the assessee. 3. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment orders, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order