“admission of additional evidence”

Rare Townships Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6 (4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

assessee against its own liability towards property tax should be allowed as a deduction. 6. The ld. AR submitted a petition for admission of additional evidence (containing 56 pages) in support of the claim that the property tax paid during AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 were made on behalf ... Collector, BSD and accordingly allowable under section 43B of the Act. 7. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed the admission of additional evidence stating that the assessee had enough opportunities to submit these evidences before the lower authorities which the assessee failed

Saptarshi Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 8 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Aaykar Bhavan, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Paral Village, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6828M Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Paral Village, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Advocate Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024

shown as a trade payable and the people have deposited towards booking of the flats. For all these above submissions assessee prayed for admission of additional evidence by invoking the provisions of rule 46A of the income tax rules as per letter dated 14/2/2018. In the additional evidence assessee ... rejoinder which was submitted. The learned AO admitted the additional evidence. His finding is that the learned assessing Officer though has opposed admission of additional evidence on the ground that during assessment proceedings the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity to present its case with documentary evidence but assessee has failed

Eye Bank Coordination and Research Centre, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exem Ward 1(2), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

income from property held under trust. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The Appellant moved application for admission of additional evidence vide letter, dated 26/05/2023. Vide notice dated 05/07/2023, the Appellant was asked to file submission by 20/07/2023. However, since the Appellant had not received ... perusal of the paper-book (running into 97 pages) filed by the 7. Appellant, we find that the Appellant had moved application for admission of additional evidence before the CIT(A) vide letter dated 26/05/2023. The Assessing Officer had returned a finding that the Appellant had failed to bring

Amit Nagesh Shinde, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward-26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, Reads As Under:-

which will prove the credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction for your reference and records. 8. Assessee had also filed petition for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A (1) to substitute the claim of the loan and its genuineness. Regarding interest, it was submitted that same was interest

Servier India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Serdia Pharmaceuticals (I) P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.6567/मुं/2011 (िन.व. 2005-06) Servier India Private Limited [Formerly Known As Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt.Ltd.] 1703, 17Th Floor, B Wing, Parinee Crescenzo, Plot Nos C-38/39, “G” Block, Behind Mca, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaacs-6696-R ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-7(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Advocate With S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R , सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

supports the assessee’s argument that CUP cannot be taken as the most appropriate method. The ld.Counsel for the assessee thus, prayed for admission of additional evidence i.e. License Agreement between Les Laboratories Servier and the assessee. 6. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessee has also ... APIs in question viz-a-viz the comparable selected by the TPO. The ld.Counsel for the assessee in support of his arguments of admission of additional evidence placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Tek Ram (dead) through L.Rs vs. CIT, 357 ITR 133(SC); (ii) Test Hundred India

Darshan Kishore Sangulkar, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2, Kalyan

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

Bench: Us Ld. Counsel Submitted That Here In This Case Exparte Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.144 On The Ground That Assessee Had Not Responded To The E-Mail Sent By The Ld. Ao & Accordingly, Additional Amount Of Unexplained Investment Of Rs.53,30,000/-

sent on different e-mail ID. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit all the issues raised before us alongwith petition for admission of additional evidences filed before us to the file of the ld. AO to decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving