NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the returned income. 2.4 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee created a assessee created a provision

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the returned income. 2.4 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee created a assessee created a provision

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] which read as under (page 18): "The Board in exercise of its jurisdiction under the aforementioned provisions had issued the circular on October 31, 1989. The said circular admittedly is binding on the Revenue. The authority, therefore, could not have taken a view, which would run counter to the mandate of the said circular.” From

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] which read as under (page 18): "The Board in exercise of its jurisdiction under the aforementioned provisions had issued the circular on October 31, 1989. The said circular admittedly is binding on the Revenue. The authority, therefore, could not have taken a view, which would run counter to the mandate of the said circular.” From

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

1) of the Act. In response to the notice, the Authorised Representative appeared from time to time and furnished the details as called for. The AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking into account the statement recorded during the course survey, held that although the assessee claims to have purchased capital goods from the party

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for sult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for sult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

1) , Mumbai has erred in passing the order u/s. 148A(d) and also issuing the notice u/s. 148 without 148A(d) and also issuing the notice u/s. 148 without 148A(d) and also issuing the notice u/s. 148 without appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for t appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for t appreciating

SNEHASADAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

256/- under section 11 read with Section 11(6) of the Act being the amount of capital expenditure incurred to be allowed as application of income. It is submitted that the disallowances referred to above are unjustified and bad in law as the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act itself is ill-founded and unwarranted

ORICON ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

section 256 of the Act. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P& H). In the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, wherein one of us (Judicial Member) is signatory to the order

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

1), Nagpur. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned counsel of the assessee has made the following submissions, as mentioned in para number 7 of the said case, the relevant para which resembles facts of our case in respect of satisfaction note is reproduced as under : 7. Learned counsel of the assessee made written as well oral submissions

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

1), Nagpur. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned counsel of the assessee has made the following submissions, as mentioned in para number 7 of the said case, the relevant para which resembles facts of our case in respect of satisfaction note is reproduced as under : 7. Learned counsel of the assessee made written as well oral submissions

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

1), Nagpur. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned counsel of the assessee has made the following submissions, as mentioned in para number 7 of the said case, the relevant para which resembles facts of our case in respect of satisfaction note is reproduced as under : 7. Learned counsel of the assessee made written as well oral submissions

SODEXO FOOD SOLUTIONS INDIA P.LTD ( FORMELRY KNWONA S RADHAKRISHNA HOSPIALALITY SERVICES P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.304 & 305/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Sodexo Food Solutions India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax Range-8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Services Private Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7042/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Services Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Mumbai -400 020 Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6864/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor Services Private Limited) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn.

delay in payment of TDS on amount of Rs.9,35,581/- and therefore the same was not allowable to the assessee in terms of Section 40(a)(ia). Another addition of Rs.20,91,550/- was made u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS against contractual / professional / rental payments made by the assessee during impugned AY. Sodexo Food Solutions

SODEXO FOOD SOLUTIONS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.304 & 305/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Sodexo Food Solutions India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax Range-8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Services Private Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7042/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Services Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Mumbai -400 020 Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6864/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor Services Private Limited) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn.

delay in payment of TDS on amount of Rs.9,35,581/- and therefore the same was not allowable to the assessee in terms of Section 40(a)(ia). Another addition of Rs.20,91,550/- was made u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS against contractual / professional / rental payments made by the assessee during impugned AY. Sodexo Food Solutions

ACIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SODEXO FOOD SOLUTIONS INDIA P.LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RADHAKRISHNA HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD)), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.304 & 305/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Sodexo Food Solutions India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax Range-8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Services Private Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7042/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Services Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Mumbai -400 020 Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6864/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor Services Private Limited) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn.

delay in payment of TDS on amount of Rs.9,35,581/- and therefore the same was not allowable to the assessee in terms of Section 40(a)(ia). Another addition of Rs.20,91,550/- was made u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS against contractual / professional / rental payments made by the assessee during impugned AY. Sodexo Food Solutions

UMASHANKAR BHAGWATI PATWA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE (DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

delay in filing appeal against impugned order holding that addition under section 68 could be made even for an unexplained credit amount on account of supply of goods, and not necessarily only for a cash credit. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 256 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Rekha Krishnaraj v. Income-tax officer, Ward No. 1, Hospet. 8.8. The fact of condonation

PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, the merits of the case is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to page-4 of the paper book, pages-40 & 42 of the paper book explained that the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly invoked. The ld. counsel also filed an order u/s 7(1) of the R.T.I

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

delay is condoned. 4. So far as, the merits of the cross objection is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act on the plea that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ignored the fact that there was no reason to belief that income has escaped assessment as there was no tangible

MOHD GAFURUDDIN F. SIDDIQUE,MUMBAI vs. CIT 15, MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed as not admitted

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Mohd. Gafuruddin F. Siddiqui, Cit-15, Flat No.1, Gr. Flr, Saadath Mumbai बनाम/ Manzil, 35, Bora St. Null Vs. Bazar, Behind Safai Masjid, Mumbai-400003 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aapps1966C

section 256 of the Act. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P& H). Our view also finds support from the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Brihan Mumbai

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

delay had to be condoned. 12 Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. (ii) That the normal rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute, A careful analysis of section 33AC shows that the deduction contemplated under section 33AC is related not to the asset possessed at the time