“first appeal”

Safe and Sure Marine Services Private Limited, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Safe & Sure Marine Income Tax Officer, Services Private Limited, Ward 8(1)(2), 5, Sagar Building, Room No.614, 6Th Floor, 327 Narsi Natha Street, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Masjid Bunder, M.K. Road, Mumbai Churchgate, Maharashtra – 400 009 Mumbai Pan: Aahcs8193E Maharashtra – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In This Case, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Of Sending Notices For The Dates Of The Previous Hearings As Well As For Today, Thus, This Court Is Constrained To Decide This Appeal As Ex-Parte.

deduction of tax at source. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording 8 opportunities, eventually made no reply and/or compliance and/or filed no submission/documents. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal

Bsel Tech Park Premisies Co Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Bsel Tech Park Commissioner Of Income Premisies Co-Operative Tax, Society Ltd., 4Th Floor, Tower 6, Bsel Tech Park, Vs. Vashi Station Complex, Opp Infotech Park, Vashi Vashi Maharashtra – 400 075 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aacab1755G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Naina Chaurasia, Ld. C.A. Revenue By : Shri Leyaqaat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.05.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Disallowed The Deduction Claimed U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act On Account Of Interest Income Earned From Co-Operative Banks To The Tune Of Rs.28,30,300/- As Detailed Below:

operative Bank Total deduction 28,30,300 claimed u/s 80P 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the disallowance made by the AO by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee affirming the aforesaid disallowance/addition

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhawan vs. Samsonite South Asia Pvt Ltd, Andheri

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 3(1)(1) 402/Ackruti Star, Midc, 607, Ayakar Bhawan, M.K. Andheri East, Vs. Road, Mumbai – 400093 Mumbai - 400020 (Pan: Aaacs8598L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Jitendra Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1075686655(1), Dated 21.04.2025, Passed Against The Order By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(3), Mumbai U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.03.2014, For Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Allowing The Entire Amount Of Rs.7,32,38,757/- Incurred By The Assessee For Building Of ‘Samsonite’ Brand Without Appreciating The Fact That These Expenses Were Incurred Towards Creating Intangible Rights In Its Favour Which Are Capable Of Giving Enduring Benefits To The Assessee Company & Hence Are Assignable Over A Number Of Year?

Assessing Officer, these expenses contributed to the creation of intangible rights in the form of brand rights which are assignable over time. In the first Appeal, ld. CIT(A) carefully examined the submissions made by the assessee and also considered the judicial precedents in assessee's own case as well

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

these expenses u/s.37 by treating them as penal in nature. Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate this ground raised by the assessee in the first appeal, though submissions were made by the assessee. Owing to non-adjudication of the ground by the ld. CIT(A), we find it appropriate ... brokerage amount was part of WIP and claimed as deduction in Assessment Year 2019-20 was reversed in Assessment Year 2020-21. In the first appeal, it was held that this amount had to be reduced from WIP as assessee could not provide proof of reversal. Assessment Year

DCIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai vs. Nirved Traders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules”). 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowance/addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner who for deciding the issue qua 14A disallowance has taken into consideration following facts: “That in the original assessment

DCIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai vs. Nirved Traders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules”). 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowance/addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner who for deciding the issue qua 14A disallowance has taken into consideration following facts: “That in the original assessment

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

these expenses u/s.37 by treating them as penal in nature. Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate this ground raised by the assessee in the first appeal, though submissions were made by the assessee. Owing to non-adjudication of the ground by the ld. CIT(A), we find it appropriate ... brokerage amount was part of WIP and claimed as deduction in Assessment Year 2019-20 was reversed in Assessment Year 2020-21. In the first appeal, it was held that this amount had to be reduced from WIP as assessee could not provide proof of reversal. Assessment Year

Income Tax Offier-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Heena Ashok Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

said amount of Rs.73,03,950/- in the income of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who not only considered various judgments of the Tribunal in the cases emanated from the same search and seizure operation and/or

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Heena Ashok Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

said amount of Rs.73,03,950/- in the income of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who not only considered various judgments of the Tribunal in the cases emanated from the same search and seizure operation and/or

Novelty Power & Infratec Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry&

account of bogus purchases u/sec. 69C of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents. Thus, the Ld. Commissioner by considering the fact that

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Bona Sera Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Rs.2,83,11,020/- as income from other sources and added it to the total income while completing the assessment. 5. 2. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), above stated factual position was reiterated with corroborative evidences placed on record. From the perusal of the first appellate

JCIT (OSD) -3(4), Mumbai vs. Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

basis of fair valuation method and Rs. 5,34,44,302/- in excess of perquisite value over the ESOP expenditure claimed. 7. In the first appeal, assessee made elaborate submissions including the judicial precedence in its own case decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in appeals for Assessment

Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

basis of fair valuation method and Rs. 5,34,44,302/- in excess of perquisite value over the ESOP expenditure claimed. 7. In the first appeal, assessee made elaborate submissions including the judicial precedence in its own case decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in appeals for Assessment

M/S. Pankaj B Thakur (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Thane

In the result, ground no. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

made by ld. CIT(A) in respect of sale of flats and shops during the year. Details of the results of first appeal are tabulated below: S. A.Y. Grounds of Amount CIT (A) by Remarks No. addition (Rs.) decision 1 2013-14 Contract 79,380 Deleted The then AO Receipt ... Thakur (HUF) AY 2013-14 in terms of satisfaction note recorded for initiating the impugned proceeding. Assessee had raised the legal issue in the first appeal on the validity of assumption of jurisdiction in absence of recording of satisfaction for the addition so made but was turned down holding