M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

condone the said delay. 4. Since the issues are common and connected, the appeals were heard together. These are being consolidated and hence disposed of together by this common order. 5. We note that for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2009-10 (except assessment year 2007-08) are appeals which were already adjudicated by the Tribunal vide order dated

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

32 Getinge Medical India Private Limited under section 119(2)(b), where the authority was held to have no power to condone delay exceeding the outer limit of 365 days. 6.6.1. The present facts does not involve any application for condonation under CBDT circular, nor does it concern eligibility to exemption dependent upon filing of an audit report. The assessee

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

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

32,000/- under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of ₹1,31,81,815/- - under section 115JB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and 115JB

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

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

32,000/- under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of ₹1,31,81,815/- - under section 115JB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and 115JB

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

condoning the delay and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby authorizes the Commissioners of Income-tax, to admit belated applications in Form No. 9A and Form No.10 in respect of AY 2016-17 where such Form No. 9A and Form No.10 are filed after

DCIT 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATLANTA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

condone the delay of 85 days and admit the cross objection for hearing on merit. 5. Grounds no.(i) to (iii) of Revenue’s appeal corresponding to the grounds raised by the assessee in the cross objection relate to the deduction claimed by the assessee on expenditure incurred on construction of Mumbra bypass road on BOT basis. 6. Brief facts

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from Section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

32(1) of the Act. We 11 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd find substance in the observation is made, the FSI is not a business asset because prior to the construction of additional space, the FSI itself does not bring any asset into existence

V HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

32(1) of the Act. We 11 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd find substance in the observation is made, the FSI is not a business asset because prior to the construction of additional space, the FSI itself does not bring any asset into existence

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD ( FORMELRY TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

32(1) of the Act. We 11 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd find substance in the observation is made, the FSI is not a business asset because prior to the construction of additional space, the FSI itself does not bring any asset into existence