“Commissioner (Appeals)”

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 33 (1), Mumbai vs. Cnp Cotton, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-33(1), M//S Cnp Cotton, Room No. 711, C-12, Pratyakshkar B/50, Cotton Exchange, Near Bhavan, B.K.C., Bandra, Cotton Green Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Cotton Green (East), Mumbai-400033. Pan No. Aaifc 5376 P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Ankur Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

before us. For ready reference the Rule 46A(3) of Rules is reproduced as under: “Rule 46A(3) of income tax rules. The [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the [Assessing ... given the liberty to make, or cause to be made, "further inquiry", in terms of sub-section (4) which reads as under:- ―The Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

transaction as a part of such financial maneoverng cannot be treated as a genuine transaction. However, when matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), she noticed that the assessee has furnished (a) PAN Card of investor; (b) ITR Acknowledgement along-with computation of income of the investor company

DCIT-8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok Santu Bhavani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

wife after selling the property at Bangalore, but the same was assessed in the hands of the assessee. Hence, as correctly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, the assessee was entitled to exemption under Shri Ashok Santu Bhavnani, Mumbai. section 54." • The decision of hAT, Bangalore

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

learned CIT(A) concluded that such payments qualifies as brand royalty. The case of assessee throughout the proceeding either before assessing officer, landed Commissioner (appeals) as well as before the tribunal that the said receipt cannot qualify as software royalty as the amount is received to RSS to computer software/system

DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai vs. Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

Gujarat in the case of Precedent Industries (supra): “3. Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made BY The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter

Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

Gujarat in the case of Precedent Industries (supra): “3. Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made BY The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter

Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

Gujarat in the case of Precedent Industries (supra): “3. Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made BY The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

outstanding loan will be recovered from the assessee. Pertinently, while sustaining a part of the adjustment made by the TPO, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has equated the letter of comfort/support to ITA No.4675 & 3290/Mum/2015 Asian Paints Ltd; AY 10-11 corporate guarantee. In our view, on perusal of the letter ... Taxman 256 (Del.) 6. DCIT v/s Warner Lambert (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 143 TTJ 571 (Mum.)(Trib.) He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed these expenses in the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 27. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied heavily upon

Infinity Retail Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(TDS)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleinfinity Retail Limited, Cit (Tds) – 1 Unit No. 701 & 702, 7Th Room No. 900, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar K.G. Mittal Building, Road, Andheri (East), Vs. Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400069. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1726H .. (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

period of two years as per clause (i) of sub- section (3) of section 201 (the un-amended provision) has already expired. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has applied the amended provision of sub-section (3) of section 201 by referring to the objects for making such amendment

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

bogus share trading transactions resulting in capital loss with purpose to reduce tax liability arose on capital gain - Assessing Officer, therefore, discarded capital losses - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed order of Assessing Officer – Tribunal also confirmed order of Assessing Officer, and while doing so, referred to a Supreme Court in case ... Commissioner of Income-tax (2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj), it was held as under: 20 A.Y.2012-13 "12. Thus, it is apparent that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing Officer that the apparent sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable

Asus India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 9 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

aforesaid provisions, the Assessing Officer disallowed 30% out of the expenditure. As discussed earlier, the disallowance made was also upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. 8. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the assessee imports electronic goods such as note books, tablets, pad-phones ... Asus India Pvt. Ltd., 9. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, the contract between the parties are not conclusive, therefore, the true nature and character of the transaction has to be examined to find out whether

DCIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

proceed on the basis that there was no obligation on the Assessing Officer to consider the claim for deduction in such letter, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT, before whom such deduction was specifically claimed was duty bound to consider such claim. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

proceed on the basis that there was no obligation on the Assessing Officer to consider the claim for deduction in such letter, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT, before whom such deduction was specifically claimed was duty bound to consider such claim. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

proceed on the basis that there was no obligation on the Assessing Officer to consider the claim for deduction in such letter, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT, before whom such deduction was specifically claimed was duty bound to consider such claim. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with

Mumbai Sez Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7022/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mumbai Sez Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-39 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34, Mumbai Vs. P.D. Mello Road, Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg2739C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.03.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,26,507/- Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita. No.7022/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.41,02,40,470/- Claimed Under Section 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Each One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal Is Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

interest income received by the assessee as income from other sources on the reasoning that assessee‟s business has not yet commenced, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a factual finding that assessee‟s business has commenced. Further, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also accepted assessee‟s claim of interest earned ... earned on ICDs as business income is, the assessee is not in money lending business. In our view, the aforesaid reasoning of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) defies logic. There is no dispute that the assessee has parked surplus business funds, which is not immediately required for utilization in business

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act), the assessee‟s contention, which has found favour with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by her reading down the law, is that such an extended time limit of sixteen years, as against the limit of six years prevailing ... this backdrop the appellant Assessing Officer has challenged the correctness of the order dated 26th November 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the Assessment year: 1999-2000 Page 2 of 7 matter of assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 for the assessment year