DCIT- 26(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTA MORTAR LINING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit-26(1), Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Hindusta Mortar Lining Llp Gala No.35, Shree Jee Ind. Estate, Subhash Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060. Pan: Aaffh4358D ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 02.03.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

bogus purchase amounting to Rs 17,14,461/-. Assessee further preferred an appeal vide ITA No 1539/M/2017. In this appeal co-ordinate bench of ITAT restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5%of Rs. 17,14,461/- amounting to Rs. 3 ITA No. 2458/Mum/2021-M/s Hindusta Mortar Lining LLP 2,14,308/-. On this addition of Rs 214308/- A.O levied

JT. CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VENUS INTERNATIONAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

purchased 2,50,000 shares of this company @ Rs.10.3 per shares on 12.08.2014 and 1,50,000 shares at the rate of Rs.10.53 per shares on 13.08.2014 and subsequently, sold 50,000 share as mentioned above. The remaining shares were remained with the assessee company as unsold during the year under consideration. The assessing officer observed that Directorate of Income

BLUE DART EXRESS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

purchase price of each cargo scanner was Rs.14,80,500/-. The assessee has claimed the depreciation @ 60% as the scanner is integral part of the computer. The AO was not convinced and allowed the depreciation @ 15%. 3. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim in both the years. 4. During

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

purchase price of each cargo scanner was Rs.14,80,500/-. The assessee has claimed the depreciation @ 60% as the scanner is integral part of the computer. The AO was not convinced and allowed the depreciation @ 15%. 3. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim in both the years. 4. During

BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

purchase price of each cargo scanner was Rs.14,80,500/-. The assessee has claimed the depreciation @ 60% as the scanner is integral part of the computer. The AO was not convinced and allowed the depreciation @ 15%. 3. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim in both the years. 4. During

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

purchase price of each cargo scanner was Rs.14,80,500/-. The assessee has claimed the depreciation @ 60% as the scanner is integral part of the computer. The AO was not convinced and allowed the depreciation @ 15%. 3. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim in both the years. 4. During

ACIT, CC-44, MUMBAI vs. SHILPA SUNIL MAJITHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

268A of the Act read with the extant circular dated 10.12.2015. The ld. AR would next contend that though the issue on merits has been decided for each of the three surviving appeals, i.e., for A.Ys. 2001-02 and 2003-04 (supra), by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central-II, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) in the favour