“Income-tax Officer”

M/S. Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

M/S. Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

M/S. Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

M/S. Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

M/S. Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Sidhesh Films P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 26/12/2017 by the ld. Income-tax Officer-16(1)(4) Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Sidhesh Films

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result Ground No. 1(c) raised by the revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shriaby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit (Tds)-2(3), Room No. 718, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. ...... Appellant Vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aabct3784C ..... Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair- Cit (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Hiten Chande Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-60, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.11.2018 Passed Under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

provisions of section 194J of the Act. Director sitting fees Outsourcing expenses; and Network charges. Further, submissions were filed with the income-tax officer (OSD) (TDS) on 27 2009, 22 December 2009, 22 January 2010, 1 April 2010, 27 May2010, 1 June 2010, 8 March 2010 and 15 December

Shweta Vishal Avankhedkar, Goregaon vs. Assessing Authority, Delhi

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

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A). Accordingly, Ld.Cit(A) Had Proceeded To Dispose Of This Appeal On Merits & Based On Materials Available On Record. Hence, The Ground No 1 Raised By The Assessee Is Hereby Dismissed.

order of assessment passed u/s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 13/12/2016 by the ld. Income-Tax officer -31(3)(4) (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2 Shweta Vishal Avankhedkar, Goregaon 2.None appeared behalf of the assessee. In fact the notice send

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Energy Pvt. Ltd. expenditure had been allowed to the erstwhile Indian Sugar Company which was a different entity from the amalgamated company. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the appellant's claim for exemption.  The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the order of the Income

M/S. Jds Ventures India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Jds Ventures India Limited Income Tax Officer – 10(2)(1) V. Office No. 4, Bharat Photo House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 547, Kalbadevi Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaeca1485E Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri N.R. Aggarwal Revenue Represented By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

successful in this contention.” 9.7. We find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata reported in 347 ITR 347(Cal) had held as follows: “15. It is now a settled law that while considering

Globalworth Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Globalworth Securities Limited, Acit, Circle-4(1)(1), 716, Neelkanth Corporate Park, Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Kirol Road, Vidyavihar (West), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai-400086. Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcg 7624 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Aditya Ramachndran, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022

with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Rovenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, Rovenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income Rovenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income the revenue is losing