MADHURI SUNIL ZODE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

276/- towards deposit of employees' contributions in EPF and ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, as the issue was disputed and moreover, the jurisdictional high court Madhuri Sunil Zode 2 of Bombay had held that employees' contributions could be paid till the due date of filing of the return of income in view section 43B of Income

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing appeal. The facts of the matter are that The facts of the matter are that a senior counsel, KB. a senior counsel, KB. Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing appeal. The facts of the matter are that The facts of the matter are that a senior counsel, KB. a senior counsel, KB. Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal

PRATIBHA VILAS PATIL,MUMBAI vs. NAFC, , DELHI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 69 of the Act on merits. Since, the notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not complied with, the CIT(A) decided the appeal on the basis of material on record. Vide order dated 22/11/2022 the CIT(A) (a) condoned the delay for in filing the appeal (b) upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings and (c) upheld

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

RALLIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

section 5 M/s Rallis India Ltd. ITA NO.3680/Mumbai/2016 CO NO.185/Mumbai/2016 145A and stated that as per the principle of stock valuation upheld by the apex court, the method of valuation regularly adopted by the appellant is a recognized method and therefore, the same cannot be rejected. The items written down to the net realizable value are items of raw materials

UNIVERSAL MEDICARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

condonation of delay was communicated to the parties while hearing the submissions of the parties. 18. Now adverting to the merits of the appeal. Ground No. 1 to 4 relates to the addition on account of amount kept in Escrow Account. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing

DEEPAK CLIFFORD MENEZES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. Pawan Singh

delay in filing all the three appeals before this Tribunal is condone. 4. For appreciation of facts, first, we are taken ITA No. 494/M 2014. The brief facts of the case as gathered from the record are that assessee is an individual filed return of income for relevant assessment year on 27th Nov 2003 declaring total income at Rs.9

INDACO JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,GOREGOAN EAST vs. WARD 6(3)(2), AAYAKRBHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

condone the delay of 790 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) because of non-disposal of rectification application filed by the assessee before the assessing officer within the time limit as prescribed u/s 154(8) of the Act as discussed supra in this order. 9. We have also perused the rectification application filed by the assessee before

INDACO JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,GOREGAON EAST vs. I.T.O 6(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

condone the delay of 790 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) because of non-disposal of rectification application filed by the assessee before the assessing officer within the time limit as prescribed u/s 154(8) of the Act as discussed supra in this order. 9. We have also perused the rectification application filed by the assessee before

SAI SHIV DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sai Shiv Developers Vs Acit Circle 32(1), Ground Floor, Amar Mumbai. Mahal, A.D. Road, Near Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Chandan Cinema, Juhu, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400049 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan: Aanfs2229J Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Vajani, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal:

276/- 2013-14 62,34,639/- Profit @22% 10,78,52,970/- 4. He further noted that opening balance of work in progress (WIP) reported by the assessee is Rs.47,60,95,782/-, to which addition made during the year for building construction expenses amounts to Rs. 1,02,64,258/-, thus totaling to closing balance at Rs.48

DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. DEEGEE ORCHARDS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

condone the delay and admit the cross objection. 7. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the revenue, wherein the revenue is contesting the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) in holding that Sales tax incentive received by the assessee is a capital receipt and hence not liable for tax. 8. We heard the parties on this issue

RAJ WINES,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CIT, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal in the interest of substantial justice and appeal is heard on merit. 3. In this appeal the assessee is aggrieved for disallowance made by AO u/s.40A(3), which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The assessee is a retail dealer

INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS BARNEVELD) BV,HYDERABAD vs. DDIT (IT) CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

276 ITR 1(Bang-AT) 3 Hewlett Packard (India) Pvt Ltd v ITO (International Taxation) [2006] 5 SOT 660 (Bang) 4 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v DCIT [2006] 7 SOT 465 (Bom) 5 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v ADIT [2006] 103 ITD 324 (Bang) 6 ACC Ltd v CC [2001] 128 ELT 21 (SC) 7 IMP Power

INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS BARNEVELD) BV ( NOW KNOWN AS INFOR (BARNEVELD) BV),HYDERABAD vs. DDIT (IT) CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

276 ITR 1(Bang-AT) 3 Hewlett Packard (India) Pvt Ltd v ITO (International Taxation) [2006] 5 SOT 660 (Bang) 4 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v DCIT [2006] 7 SOT 465 (Bom) 5 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v ADIT [2006] 103 ITD 324 (Bang) 6 ACC Ltd v CC [2001] 128 ELT 21 (SC) 7 IMP Power

ADIT (IT) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. BAAN GLOBAL B.V. NOW KNOWN AS INFORMATION GLOBAL SOLUTION ( BARNEVELD) BV, MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

276 ITR 1(Bang-AT) 3 Hewlett Packard (India) Pvt Ltd v ITO (International Taxation) [2006] 5 SOT 660 (Bang) 4 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v DCIT [2006] 7 SOT 465 (Bom) 5 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v ADIT [2006] 103 ITD 324 (Bang) 6 ACC Ltd v CC [2001] 128 ELT 21 (SC) 7 IMP Power

ITO (IT) TDS 3, MUMBAI vs. SSA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES (I) P.LTD ( FORMERLY KNWONA AS INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (I) P.LTD), MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

276 ITR 1(Bang-AT) 3 Hewlett Packard (India) Pvt Ltd v ITO (International Taxation) [2006] 5 SOT 660 (Bang) 4 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v DCIT [2006] 7 SOT 465 (Bom) 5 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v ADIT [2006] 103 ITD 324 (Bang) 6 ACC Ltd v CC [2001] 128 ELT 21 (SC) 7 IMP Power

INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD-41(2)(4), MUMBAI , KAUTILYA BHAWAN, G BLOCK, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI vs. PUSHPADEVI SANTKUMAR TOLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The only grievance of the Revenue is against the deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee had shown purchases of Rs.88

NARYAN PAGRANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

delay and do not find any merit on the part of CIT(A)’s action for rejecting the condonation application of the assessee. 7. On merits, we found that the issue regarding availability of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act in relation to DEPB, Duty Drawback and Profit on sale of DEPB in case an exporter whose turnover is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission