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

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

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

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

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

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

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

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

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

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

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

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

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

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

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

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

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

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN EXPRESS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

35D is deleted. This ground is allowed.” 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order by holding that there was expansion of the existing unit. During the course of hearing also we required the 3 M/s. The Indian Express

ACIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TARAPUR TRANSOFRMERS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

purchase bills to prove the rate of variation in copper (which contributes almost 40% of raw material cost). All these factors collectively had contributed for reduction in GP and NP margins during the year under consideration, which fact has been rightly appreciated by the ld CITA. Hence we do not find any M/s. Tarapur Transformers Ltd., infirmity in the order

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

bogus LTCG entries. In view of the same, the transactions entered by you is to be treated as sham transaction and sale consideration has to be brought to tax u/s, 68 of the Act by treating the same as unexplained cash credits." 3. As pointed out by your good office in the said show cause notice, admittedly the assessee

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

purchase during the year?" 3. Question No. i arises out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the issue before the Assessing Officer for proper verification of facts. The record would suggest that the assessee, in view of its success before the Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of interest credited to Interest Suspense Account

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

purchase during the year?" 3. Question No. i arises out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the issue before the Assessing Officer for proper verification of facts. The record would suggest that the assessee, in view of its success before the Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of interest credited to Interest Suspense Account

KARNATAKA STRIPS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CEN CIR-33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

purchase of these fixed assets is genuine and supported by admissible evidences and materials; ii) the depreciation is claimed on the assets owned by the Appellant and used for the purposes of the business carried on by the Appellant; and iii) these fixed assets have been physically verified and valued by the Chartered Engineer. c) In reaching to the conclusion

KARNATAKA STRIPS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CEN CIR-33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

purchase of these fixed assets is genuine and supported by admissible evidences and materials; ii) the depreciation is claimed on the assets owned by the Appellant and used for the purposes of the business carried on by the Appellant; and iii) these fixed assets have been physically verified and valued by the Chartered Engineer. c) In reaching to the conclusion

KARNATAKA STRIPS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CEN CIR-33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

purchase of these fixed assets is genuine and supported by admissible evidences and materials; ii) the depreciation is claimed on the assets owned by the Appellant and used for the purposes of the business carried on by the Appellant; and iii) these fixed assets have been physically verified and valued by the Chartered Engineer. c) In reaching to the conclusion

KARNATAKA STRIPS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CEN CIR-33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

purchase of these fixed assets is genuine and supported by admissible evidences and materials; ii) the depreciation is claimed on the assets owned by the Appellant and used for the purposes of the business carried on by the Appellant; and iii) these fixed assets have been physically verified and valued by the Chartered Engineer. c) In reaching to the conclusion