PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

b) of section 40 , rather this contention of the assessee support the stand that the salary and interest payable to partners are an ‘expenditure’ covered under Section 30 to 37 of the Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corporation(supra) . Thus, we hold that ‘expenditure’ as envisaged by Section 14A of the Act, duly include

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

b) of section 40 , rather this contention of the assessee support the stand that the salary and interest payable to partners are an ‘expenditure’ covered under Section 30 to 37 of the Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corporation(supra) . Thus, we hold that ‘expenditure’ as envisaged by Section 14A of the Act, duly include

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

b) and therefore, the provisions of s. 40A(2) were not applicable. Both CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have also accepted the explanation given by the assessee with regard to difference in payment of bottling charges vis-à-vis Balbir Industries Ltd. and the assessee. The reference to which we have already made hereinabove. We find no perversity

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

b) and therefore, the provisions of s. 40A(2) were not applicable. Both CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have also accepted the explanation given by the assessee with regard to difference in payment of bottling charges vis-à-vis Balbir Industries Ltd. and the assessee. The reference to which we have already made hereinabove. We find no perversity

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

b) and therefore, the provisions of s. 40A(2) were not applicable. Both CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have also accepted the explanation given by the assessee with regard to difference in payment of bottling charges vis-à-vis Balbir Industries Ltd. and the assessee. The reference to which we have already made hereinabove. We find no perversity

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

section 40A(2)(b) to the Interest rate paid on Unsecured Loans, although the same are not applicable, since the deduction has been claimed u/s, 24(b) under the head Income from House Property', and consequently the order is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. (iii) The learned CIT has completely and erroneously ignored the fact, that

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GEHNA JEWELLERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 12, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS has been made on labour charges paid; 2. No details have been filed along with the audit report regarding the manufacture of jewellery of 18 carat and 20 carat and no details are available in respect of sale of jewellery of various denominator such as 18 carat and 20 carat gold and diamond jewellery; 3 Gehna Jewellers

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) of the Act and also expenses for non deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Act on account of transport charges by invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act. For this Revenue has raised following ground Nos. 1 & 2

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) of the Act and also expenses for non deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Act on account of transport charges by invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act. For this Revenue has raised following ground Nos. 1 & 2