RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

condoned, as there is no reasonable cause for the delay. We find that on this issue, the assessee has made the following submissions: In the assesse' s own appeal for A.Y. 1995-96 the CIT (A) has held to determine the annual value of the property @ 27 ITA No. 4322/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) C.O. NO. 287& 288/MUM/2017 M/s. Raymond Limited

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed in terms of our directions as given above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and accordingly dismissing the appeal as not maintainable; 2. erred in holding that tax is required to be deducted at source on the amount payable by the Appellant to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited ('Intelsat') [mentioned by the CIT(A) as PanAmSat Corporation] under the Transponder Service Agreement (' Agreement') ; Treating

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed in terms of our directions as given above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and accordingly dismissing the appeal as not maintainable; 2. erred in holding that tax is required to be deducted at source on the amount payable by the Appellant to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited ('Intelsat') [mentioned by the CIT(A) as PanAmSat Corporation] under the Transponder Service Agreement (' Agreement') ; Treating

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed in terms of our directions as given above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and accordingly dismissing the appeal as not maintainable; 2. erred in holding that tax is required to be deducted at source on the amount payable by the Appellant to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited ('Intelsat') [mentioned by the CIT(A) as PanAmSat Corporation] under the Transponder Service Agreement (' Agreement') ; Treating

WESTERN OUTDOOR INTERACTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

delay being condoned by CBDT whereby the revised return in which such claim is made effective. It is ordered accordingly. 28. Ground No.9 with regard to interest under section 244A

WESTERN OUTDOOR INTERACTIVE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ASSTT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

delay being condoned by CBDT whereby the revised return in which such claim is made effective. It is ordered accordingly. 28. Ground No.9 with regard to interest under section 244A

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CALPGEMINI CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

section 244A of the Act and has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or withdraw any or all the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal, as they may be advised from time to time.” 2. The Ld.AR at the outset submitted that

IIT INVESTRUST LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 491)(2), , MUMBAI

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal: We refer to the order dated 11.08.2010 of the Assessing Officer framed under section 154 of the Act determining total income 4,46,37,540 for income-tax assessment year 2008-09. In this connection, we would like to inform you that the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA (STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR (NOW MERGED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA), MUMBAI

In the result solitary ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm State Bank Of India (State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur) (Now Merged With Acit 2(2)(1) Room No.545, 5Th Floor, State Bank Of India) 3Rd Floor, Frt Department, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs4750R Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024

section 244A till date of granting of refund. The learned AO is aggrieved with appellate order is in appeal before us. 05. Firstly, the appeal is filed late and therefore a condition request was made by letter dated 10/4/2023 wherein it was mentioned that delay is because of pressing time for filing appeal before the honourable High Court different assesses

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

condoning the delay in filing separate appeal before him against the DDT order. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order without affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

condoning the delay in filing separate appeal before him against the DDT order. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order without affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

condoning the delay in filing separate appeal before him against the DDT order. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order without affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

condoning the delay in filing separate appeal before him against the DDT order. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order without affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case

DAIWA CAPITAL MARKETS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,LOWER PAREL vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 1 1 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandaiwa Capital Markets India Acit Circle 4(1)(1), Private Limited Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Office No. N10 & N11, 9Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dextrus-Peninsula Tower, Peninsula Mumbai-400 020 Corporate Park, G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aaccd7178B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

244A of the Act. 10. On the other hand, Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue while relying on the orders of AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) submitted that assessee has not followed the rule and procedure for claiming credit of TDS as the same was never claimed in the ITR which was the requirement of law/ Income

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

244A of\nthe Act amounting to Rs.2,57,25,492 on the refund referred to in ground no. (6)\nabove due to the Appellant.\n8. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.40,074 being sum paid\ntowards profession tax having failed to appreciate that the said sum paid towards\nprofessional tax is not routed through profit

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

244A of\nthe Act amounting to Rs.2,57,25,492 on the refund referred to in ground no. (6)\nabove due to the Appellant.\n8. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.40,074 being sum paid\ntowards profession tax having failed to appreciate that the said sum paid towards\nprofessional tax is not routed through profit

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

delay is condoned. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal and the assessee has raised the following grounds in its cross objection: Grounds raised by the Revenue: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding reopening u/s. 147 of the Act not valid and the quashing

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA , BANK OF BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

delay is condoned. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal and the assessee has raised the following grounds in its cross objection: Grounds raised by the Revenue: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding reopening u/s. 147 of the Act not valid and the quashing