“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT

389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court

241

citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT

392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court

202

citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

pertaining to the Corporate Tax remained unchanged at Rs.50,20,109. 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, raising following grounds:- 3 IT(TP)A No.294/Bang/20201 M/s.Xchanging Solutions Limited “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the final assessment order was passed, against which the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The contention of the assessee are summarized as follows:- * The payments are towards cloud-based services availed by the Company which does not provide the Company with

M/S. Md. Noorudin Zaiwala, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1708/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S M.D. Noorudin Zariwala The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Prop. Mohd Noorudin Mondal) (Appeals)-Nfac, F Sector H-2 Line, Room No. 1, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Cheeta Camp, Trombay, Near Jama Masjid, Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Afepg 6380 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Navin B. Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

allowed part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved additions/disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages

Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3415/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 14Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250

which resulted in addition to an extent of Rs. 42,49,524. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. While the appeal before the Tribunal was pending, the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 07/01/2016 issued under section 148 of the Act initiated reassessment

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

same was rejected by learned DRP. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer/TPO, both the parties have filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee first. The first issue relates to transfer pricing adjustment made ... fairly admitted that the revenue has not accepted the above said direction given by Ld DRP and it has filed appeal before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, we notice that, from A.Y. 2011-12 onwards, the TPO himself has accepted the contention of the assessee and examined

Wills Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1140/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Towers Watson India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 511/512, Solitaire Corporate Park, Income Tax, Circle-11(3)-1, 151, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Floor Aayakar Andheri (East) , Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 2955 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 92CSection 92C(4)

direction to the Assessing Officer. Pursuant to the direction, the Assessing Officer has passed this final assessment order, against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties on the issue-in-dispute and perused

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, the DRP has granted relief to the assessee and the Revenue has not filed an appeal before the Tribunal. In the light of the above submission, the assessee made the following prayer:- (i) Commercial Services (IT Services) of Rs. 19,97,000 paid

Bostik India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2031/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee stands allowed

ITA 4903/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 4903/मुं/2011 ("न.व. 2004-05) Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd. P&G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacp-6332-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cir.8, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms.Vatsalya Saxena & Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms.Vatsalya Saxena and Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

issue in favour of the assessee holding that each of the undertaking was separate and independent. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the findings of CIT(A). The Tribunal further observed on organizational features, commonality of some of the facilities, etc. as under

Sri Basavaraj Gunjegai, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay was neither intentional, wilful nor deliberate. 3. I have heard both the parties on the issue of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.4.2021 and 23.9.2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) due to COVID-19 pandemic providing

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

State Government or a local authority or statutory body as in clause (b) of section 80IA(4). 21. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal aggrieved by the decision of the lower authorities. 22. Besides the above, the assessee is also contending the quantification of deduction u/s.80IA which ... Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 27 of 43 facility in the light of provisions of SPRH agreement. The aforesaid finding has been affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. The aforesaid findings are concurrent findings of fact which do not suffer from any perversity. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable

Pranav Shantikumar Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ward 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6884/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

debt claim in respect of the same cannot be adjusted against the business income. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2962/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

opinion, it was neither a primary agricultural credit society or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned D.R. referred to the decision

Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Shri Admor Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4209/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shri Admor Pvt. Ltd., Acit-7(2), 61, Prabha Mandir, Prabhadevi 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcs 3748 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 5

July 2018 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 14 received on 23 October 2018. 3. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal had expired on 22nd November 2018. 4. That as our Chartered Accountants have been shifting their office from Nariman point to Andheri

Damico Ship Ishima India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(1), Raigad

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6112/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6112/मुं/2014 ("न. व. 2009-10) M/S. Damico Ship Ishima India Private Limited. A-202/203, City Point, J.B.Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaics-2005-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assist. Commissioner Of Income Tax., Circle 9(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty

Section 143(3)

dismissed the appeal of assessee in toto and confirmed the addition. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Jitendra Jain appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that he is not pressing ground No.1(c). In so far as ground No.1

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkuar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2481/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2481/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

order reported as Cognizance for Extension of Limitation 132 taxmann.com 123. In the present case the impugned order was passed on 31/08/2021. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 29/12/2021. The appeal has been filed within extended period of limitation. Hence, no delay in filing of the appeal

ACIT -17 (1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2479/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2479/मुं/2021("न.व.2009-10) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Shoppers Stop Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1377/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shoppers Stop Limited, Dy. Commissioner Of Income 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Malad Link Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Road, Mindspace, Malad (West), Vs. Room No. 1918, Air India Mumbai-400064. Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcs 4383 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Manan Mathuria, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasbir Chouhan, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 40

however, same has been rejected by him. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal in all the respective years, raising the grounds for seeking deduction of education cess of higher and secondary education cess in view of the principle laid

Shoppers Stop Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1376/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Manan Mathuria, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasbir Chouhan, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 40