RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act but invested in specified bonds i.e. NABARD bonds within one month of the receipt of sale consideration being part payment. Hence, we are of the considered view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act on part payment received after completion of transaction on 02.07.2004. In view of the above

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act but invested in specified bonds i.e. NABARD bonds within one month of the receipt of sale consideration being part payment. Hence, we are of the considered view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act on part payment received after completion of transaction on 02.07.2004. In view of the above

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act but invested in specified bonds i.e. NABARD bonds within one month of the receipt of sale consideration being part payment. Hence, we are of the considered view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act on part payment received after completion of transaction on 02.07.2004. In view of the above

V.N. KARBHATKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shri V. N. Karvatkar, 4-5, Chapel Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Avenue, Chapel Road, Bandra 19(3) (4), Mumbai (West), Mumbai 400050 Pan: Aacpk 2651 B Appellant .. Respondent

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, it was held by the AO that transfer of capital asset in question was completed on 27-05- 2004 i. e. on the date of sale agreement was executed/registered. Considering the above view and after recording reasons for reopening, the assessment was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28th

SHREE JALARAM BUILDERS & DEV. ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3) (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and accordingly it would constitute transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v).Therefore, the payment of compensation by the appellant in this case, will attract provisions of section 194-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The section 194-IA of the Act was introduced with effect from 1 June

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. - 7(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A Valuation Report has been obtained from a Chartered Engineer to determine the Fair Market Value of the assets as on 01.04.1981 and the allocation between land and building. The Computation of Capital Gains (Long Term) on transfer of the appropriate portion of land has been accordingly computed and reflected in Schedule

BALAJEE INFRATECH & CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

TDS compliance. 6.1. The assessee further drew attention to the fact that the payments had been fully subjected to deduction of tax at source and reflected in its books of account, thereby dispelling any inference of concealment or unaccounted outgo. 7. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 133(6) to Mr. Arun Gajanan Adhikari

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. RIA LABORATORIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7656/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Ria Laboratories Pvt. बनाम/ Tax -10(2), Ltd., V. Room No. 432, 4 Th Floor, 24, Shree Diamond Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, M.K. Road, Lbs Marg, Mumbai 400 020. Vikhroli West, Mumbai- 400 083. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadcr2622R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS was also reflected in the bank statements submitted by the assessee company before the AO. The assessee company also submitted that it has not carried out any business activities during the year and hence there is no income other than income from house property as stated above. Since there was no business activities carried on by the assessee company

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

TDS was deducted on this." iv. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.27,67,423/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets in respect of professional fees capitalized in fixed assets/' v. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ) ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-50, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. (Formerly Cit(A)-50, Dcit Cen. 8(1), Known As Smartchem Technologies 656, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd.), Mumbai-400021. Survey No. 93, Sai Hira, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. Pan No. Aacca 5046 P Appellant Respondent

TDS. The assessee is mainly is mainly agitated that no incriminating material had that no incriminating material had been found qua the additions/disallowance made during the year been found qua the additions/disallowance made during the year been found qua the additions/disallowance made during the year under consideration and being non abated assessment, no addition and being non abated assessment