“appeal before the tribunal”

Navi Mumbai Sports Association, Navi Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) II (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

newly inserted Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 3 ITAs 6160, 6161 &7710/Mum/2019 6. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned AR of the assessee submitted that on a similar issue in the case of MIG Cricket Club, the Hon’ble Tribunal

Navi Mumbai Sports Association, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E)-II (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

newly inserted Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 3 ITAs 6160, 6161 &7710/Mum/2019 6. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned AR of the assessee submitted that on a similar issue in the case of MIG Cricket Club, the Hon’ble Tribunal

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd (Successor to M/S Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3028/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Spirit Infrapower & Dcit-8(2)(2) R. No. 625, 6Th Floor, Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To M/S Premier Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Finance & Trading Co. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बिधम/ Ltd.) Vs. 18Th Floor, A-Wint, Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aalcs5905J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. Ar : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenges The Order Dated 04.12.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

Though the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed all the above mentioned grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal only on the limited issue which involves only one substantial issue. However, we reproduce the grounds as such stated by the assessee

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1185/Mum/2009 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Dcit-1(1) बिधम/ M/S. Acc Ltd. Room No.579, Aayakar Cement House, 121, M. K. Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1507C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms.Shailja Rai (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.11.2008 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -I Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2003- 04. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " L. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Directing To Delete The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unutilized Modvat Credit & Further In Directing To Allow The Relief Of Rs. 12,09,86,528/- Instead Of Rs. 3,21,85,825/-.” A.Y.2003-04 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition In Respect Of Corporation Tax Paid At Saudi Arabia Of Rs. 2,05,75,346/-.”

concerned. The AO has not only refused to follow the directions of the FAA but also choose not to file appeal before the Tribunal against the direction. Thus, the issue had attained finality. When the assessee found that the AO had not followed the directions ... income by valuing the sugarcane grown in its own farms at market value and deducting therefrom the agricultural expenses. In its order in appeal the Appellate Tribunal directed the AO to ascertain the average transport charges per maund from the purchasing centres to the assessee's factory

Tosoh India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T.-13(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

documentary evidence. 4. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition on both the counts. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the customers of the assessee are either

Atos Information Technology Hk Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

appeal before the ITAT. In the original round ITAT has remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. Grounds of appeal before the Tribunal in the first round read as under :- "1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Deputy

Morgan Stanley Solutions India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 9(2) {Successor To Morgan Stanley Solutions Room No. 261, 2Nd Floor India Pvt. Ltd.,} Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Antena Building No.5 Mumbai - 400020 Sector 30, Mindspace, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400090 Pan: Aadcm7403M Appellant Respondent

service, and the department by accepting the said order of the 'DRP' for A.Y. 2011-12 by not carrying the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal, had thus allowed it to attain finality. We further find that in the assessee's own case for the immediately succeeding year

Bhagatram Godhwani, Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagatram Godhwani, Income Tax Officer-10(3)(3), 165, 5-B, Sanjay Building No. 5, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Mital Industries Estate, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aabpg 3339 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

Natasha Enterprises Rs. 10,00,000/- 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the addition. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 4. At the outset, we find that the registry has pointed out a delay of 322 days in filing the appeal

Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D. Y. Patil Educational Enterprises Charitable Trust, Pune

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Income Tax, Central–4, Mumbai, received the copy of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 5th May 2021, however, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 3rd August 2021. The learned DR further submitted that the last date for filing of appeal before Tribunal was 3rd July

Mrs. Deepal N Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

order by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in a summary manner has rejected the appeal on merits. The assessee in grounds of appeal before the Tribunal has not assailed ex-parte proceedings by the First Appellate Tribunal. Nor oral ground/submission was raised

Air India Air Transport Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2856/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

which was subsequently confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) on 27.02.19. Consequent upon such order passed by Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5 I.T.A. No. 2856/Mum/2019 M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd 4. Ld. AR submitted that penalty should not be levied

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

addition and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds, as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through videoconferencing facility. The Ld. counsel of the assessee

Asstt. CIT -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 908 & 909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit Circle-3(1)(1) M/S. Rideema Toll Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, 6Th Floor, M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ltd. 501-B, 5Th Floor, Silver Utopia Road, Mumbai-400020. Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0266H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13. Ita. No.909/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Made On

relief in case of reimbursement of expenses of similar nature paid to other Roche group companies against which the Department has not filed appeal before the Tribunal. In this context we rely on the decision by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT v. A.P. Moller Maersk