DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

condone the delay caused in filing of the appeal and dismiss the same in limine. 8.As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue gets dismissed. 10. Similarly the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Binani Industries Ltd, [2021] 141 taxmann.com 2 (Calcutta) has observed- Head notes Section 260A

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

delay in filing cross objection is condoned and cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 31. The brief facts of the cross objection filed by the assesee are that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO as to why, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, be not made, the assesee vide

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RONAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle- 2(4) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt Ltd Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No. Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 004 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aabcr 7550 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. Madhuri Tambe & Aishwarya Wanikar Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2023

2 rendered by the trial Court. 38. In the present case, it is not as if the issue of non 38. In the present case, it is not as if the issue of non-fulfillment of fulfillment of jurisdictional parameters of Section tional parameters of Section 153C was raised but rejected by 153C was raised but rejected

TAURUS TRANSPORT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

delay is condoned. 3. Now, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee on merit. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the disallowance were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on estimate basis and identically for Assessment Year 2007- 08 and 2008-09, the claim of the assessee was accepted though

TAURUS TRANSPORT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

delay is condoned. 3. Now, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee on merit. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the disallowance were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on estimate basis and identically for Assessment Year 2007- 08 and 2008-09, the claim of the assessee was accepted though

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

VIVEK VINOD VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

U S ROOFS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 V. M/S.U.S.Roofs Ltd., The Ito-10(3), 115/116, Jk Chambers, Mumbai. Sec-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. [Pan: Aaacu 3633 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023

delay caused in filing of appeal stands condoned. 3. Further, it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the impugned order ex parte qua assessee. According to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had been granted ‘4’ opportunities and since, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by him, he was pleased to dismiss the grounds raised

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, THANE vs. ARUN KUMAR PILLAI, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

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

260A read with section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a Constitutional Court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice. 45. In conclusion, we hold that appeals