THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gains', which is not relevant for the\npresent case. On examining the aforesaid provisions, as referred in section 80\nITA No.2458/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n19\nof the Act, prima facie, these sections do not cover or deal with procedure of\nsetting off of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance.\n10. Section 32 of the Act deals with different types

TEJRAJ DALICHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Tejraj Dalichand Jain National Faceless Flat No. 14, Nakshtra, Assessment Centre Vs. Chandavarkar Road, Ito 25(2)(2) Borivali (West)- 400092. Bkc, Mumbai. Pan: Aabpj3476C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“Act” In Short) Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059124020(1) Dated 28.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised: “The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To, One Another-

gains from business and profession" by virtue of deeming provisions of section 28(v) of the Act and hence, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the impugned penalty. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated ground of appeal.” 3. There is only one ground

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

gains of the assessee has not been computed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the profit/loss has to be computed as per Rule 10(i) of the Income-tax Rules in which the global profitability can only be taken as one of the factors. 3.5.3 The assessee submits that all its activities have been carried out outside

VAIBHAV BHARGAVA,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

capital gains on sale of securities. For the year under consideration, the assessee missed filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act and as per the information received from the INSIGHT portal, the AO formed a I.T.A. No. 2540/Mum/2025 2 belief that the assessee has not disclosed certain transactions and hence has not filed his return of income