M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, the Dy. CIT had passed an order under section 154 of the Act (see pages 3-5 of Factual paper book-1). 4 25.08.2003 The Dy. CIT issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, selecting the Assessee’s ROI for scrutiny (see page 6 of Factual paper book-1). 5 17.10.2003 The Addl. CIT (Transfer Pricing

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS-2 Room No. 113, Scindia House, 1st Floor, Ballard Estate, ……………. Appellant N.M. Road, Mumbai-400038 v/s M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Respondent Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M ITA no.8707/Mum./2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Appellant Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M v/s Additional Commissioner

ITO (IT) TDS-2, MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS-2 Room No. 113, Scindia House, 1st Floor, Ballard Estate, ……………. Appellant N.M. Road, Mumbai-400038 v/s M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Respondent Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M ITA no.8707/Mum./2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Appellant Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M v/s Additional Commissioner

SANAND SANKARDAS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Assessee is disposed of in favour of\nthe Assessee in above manner

TDS\nstatement, payment made to non-resident u/s 195 of\nRs.2,28,760/-. From the e-filing portal of the department\nit was noticed that the Assessee had filed return of income\nfor the year under consideration which caused\nescapement of income from assessment to the tune of\nRs.75,85,076/-. The case of the Assessee was reopened\nwithin

DCIT CC 7(2).MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

TDS as per the provision of section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

TDS & TCS in respect of income and expenses included in the previous year's income for which the appellant could not file the claim due to non receipt of the requisite certificates from the issuer.” 11.1. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that vide order dated 15/04/2010 passed under Section 154 of the Act, the grievance

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124 of the Act i.e. ITO- Ward 3(3). Admittedly in all these cases, the reasons have been recorded (for re-opening) A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act has been recorded by Deputy Commissioner-3(3) and consequent to which had issued

VIVEK VINOD VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124 of the Act i.e. ITO- Ward 3(3). Admittedly in all these cases, the reasons have been recorded (for re-opening) A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act has been recorded by Deputy Commissioner-3(3) and consequent to which had issued

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124 of the Act i.e. ITO- Ward 3(3). Admittedly in all these cases, the reasons have been recorded (for re-opening) A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act has been recorded by Deputy Commissioner-3(3) and consequent to which had issued

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124 of the Act i.e. ITO- Ward 3(3). Admittedly in all these cases, the reasons have been recorded (for re-opening) A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act has been recorded by Deputy Commissioner-3(3) and consequent to which had issued

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124 of the Act i.e. ITO- Ward 3(3). Admittedly in all these cases, the reasons have been recorded (for re-opening) A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act has been recorded by Deputy Commissioner-3(3) and consequent to which had issued

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124 of the Act i.e. ITO- Ward 3(3). Admittedly in all these cases, the reasons have been recorded (for re-opening) A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act has been recorded by Deputy Commissioner-3(3) and consequent to which had issued

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124 of the Act i.e. ITO- Ward 3(3). Admittedly in all these cases, the reasons have been recorded (for re-opening) A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act has been recorded by Deputy Commissioner-3(3) and consequent to which had issued

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124 of the Act i.e. ITO- Ward 3(3). Admittedly in all these cases, the reasons have been recorded (for re-opening) A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act has been recorded by Deputy Commissioner-3(3) and consequent to which had issued

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

TDS & TCS in respect of\nincome and expenses included in the previous year's income for\nwhich the appellant could not file the claim due to non receipt of the\nrequisite certificates from the issuer.”\n11. 1. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that vide order\ndated 15/04/2010 passed under Section 154 of the Act, the\ngrievance

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course