GEETA BABU SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands\ndismissed

292B of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 which clearly states that any return of\nincome, assessment, notice, summons, or other proceedings\nmade or issued under the law will not be considered invalid\nsolely due to mistakes, defects, or omissions, as long as the\nsubstance and purpose of the action align with the intent of the\nlaw. In other words, minor

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS which was paid to government account. No deficiency or discrepancy was point out by AO in the evidence furnished by the assessee. Similar Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited ITA No. 4161 & 4162 & CO No 204 & 205 (AY 2015-16 & 2016- 17) commission was paid in earlier years and has been accepted in the assessment order passed under section

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS which was paid to government account. No deficiency or discrepancy was point out by AO in the evidence furnished by the assessee. Similar Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited ITA No. 4161 & 4162 & CO No 204 & 205 (AY 2015-16 & 2016- 17) commission was paid in earlier years and has been accepted in the assessment order passed under section

BRINDABAN III CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Brindaban Iii Co-Operative Income Tax Officer, Ward- Housing Society Ltd., 24(1)(1), Mumbai Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves Vs. Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 093 (Pan : Aabab2518A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Kinjal Bhuta, Advocate Revenue : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

TDS on which was deducted under the old PAN. Assessee therefore, filed another return in response to notice u/s. 148 on 28.11.2019, reporting rental income of Rs. 13,50,000/- including Rs. 4,50,000/- of Loop Mobile. Ld. Assessing Officer accepted the return of income filed by the assessee reporting total income at Rs.13,23,770/- including rental income

SURAJKUMAR & SONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant, Member & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Surajkumar & Sons 302,-C, Shivshakti Chs Ltd., Kashinath Dhuru Marg, Agar Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaqfs4464G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent

292B of the Act. The ld. AR brought our attention to the fact that being a partnership firm the assessee was under obligation to file its return of income even otherwise. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has contended

LATE ANANDA RAJGOPALAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24 (1)(2), MUMBA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

TDS of Rs,3,188/- reflected on traces site, the assessee neither received the principal nor received interest. The assessee had neither concealed particulars nor furnished any inaccurate particulars. In view of this penalty may be dropped. Another show cause was issued on 27.09.2016 fixing the date of hearing on 28.09.2016. In response to this notice the assessee submitted

IPSOS RESEARCH P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 11(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS] on certain payments made by the assessee to its group entities located outside India. Resultantly, the income Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 of the assessee was proposed to be determined at Rs.14.93 Crores in the draft order dated 26/03/2014 which was subjected to objections by assessee before Ld. DRP. 3.3 The Ld. TPO noted that the assessee

IPSOS RESEARCH P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIT CIR 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS] on certain payments made by the assessee to its group entities located outside India. Resultantly, the income Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 of the assessee was proposed to be determined at Rs.14.93 Crores in the draft order dated 26/03/2014 which was subjected to objections by assessee before Ld. DRP. 3.3 The Ld. TPO noted that the assessee

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

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA (E- VIJAYA BANK), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

TDS & disallowances for such Default vi. Refund Claim vii. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section (BL07) ITA No.2942/Mum/2024 & Ors. Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) viii. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment ix. Unsecured Loans x. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income xi. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xii. Business Expenses 4. Notice

BANK OF BARODA (ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, NEW DELHI, NFAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

TDS & disallowances for such Default vi. Refund Claim vii. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section (BL07) ITA No.2942/Mum/2024 & Ors. Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) viii. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment ix. Unsecured Loans x. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income xi. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xii. Business Expenses 4. Notice

WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT - 5 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleworld Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit -5 4Th Floor, Wtp, Jln Room No. 515, 5Th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Sahai.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dr.Kishordhule.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

TDS made, details of advances received against booking etc. These notices/questionnaires were responded vide replies dated 07.10.2019, 23/25.11.2019, 04.12.2019, 18.12.2019. The A.O has acknowledged that submissions on different dates were filed through e-filing portal. 2. Your Show Cause Notice us 263 states that "On perusal of records, it is observed that the assessee co. had outstanding advance received against