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 ()

delay in filing Form 10-IC is condoned. The Ld.AO is accordingly directed to accept the assessee’s option under section 115BAA and recompute the tax liability at the concessional rate in accordance with law. Accordingly, the ground No.3 raised by the assessee stands allowed. Ground No.4 is on the issue raised by the assesse is against the addition

RAAHAT HUMANITARIAN FOUDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Raahat Humanitarian Foundation, Cit (Exemptions), A 204, Zubaida Park, Behind Simla Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Park, Old Mumbai Pune Road, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Dr Kausa Mumbra, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Thane-400612. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaetr 9830 K Appellant Respondent

condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to ation shall be deemed to have been filed within time;] have been filed within time;]” 6.2 The process of granting registration process of granting registration for application of the for application of the category under section 12A(1)(ac)(viB) has category under section 12A(1)(ac)(viB) has been

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, 17Th Floor, One World Center, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400013 Pan : Aaacb6134D V/S

delay of 4 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 15. The issue arising in Ground No.1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act on Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) expenses. 16. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During

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

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

condoned the delay. 4. Now, coming to issue No. 1&2 in which the assessee took the plea of limitation. It is the argument of the representative of the assessee that the show-cause notice in all the cases were issued by the Assessing Officer on 23.9.2003, which was served upon the assessee on 24.9.2003 and the proceedings

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

delay is condoned to take up the matter for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 13.03.2014, reporting total income at Rs. 6,04,020/-. Information was received by the ld. A.O. from Insight portal that assessee had sold shares in the alleged penny stock scrip i.e. ACI Infocom Ltd. listed

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing appeal/cross objection is condoned. Ground No.1 and 2 of Department’s Appeal 11. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the directions issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer in relation to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessee

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing appeal/cross objection is condoned. Ground No.1 and 2 of Department’s Appeal 11. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the directions issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer in relation to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessee

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

delay of 4 days in filing the appeal\nby the Revenue is condoned.\n15. The issue arising in Ground No.1, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains\nto the deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act on Corporate Social\nResponsibility (“CSR\") expenses.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record, are: During

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

1 of sub-section (2) to section 115JB of the Act. The said Appeal has been partly dismissed by the Hon'ble ITAT confirming the addition of provision for doubtful debt while computing the book profit u/s 1151B of the Act. However, in the said order the Hon'ble ITAT gave a categorical finding that no interest u/s 234B

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

condone the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The first contention of the ld. AR is with regard to the legal issue that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022 is barred by limitation. The ld. AR submitted that the AO issued a notice under

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.

section 32(1) while confirming the disallowance is concerned, we agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that any expenditure which is otherwise is of revenue nature cannot be treated as capital expenditure by applying the said Explanation and there is no such intention either explicit or even implicit in the provisions of the said

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.

section 32(1) while confirming the disallowance is concerned, we agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that any expenditure which is otherwise is of revenue nature cannot be treated as capital expenditure by applying the said Explanation and there is no such intention either explicit or even implicit in the provisions of the said

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.

section 32(1) while confirming the disallowance is concerned, we agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that any expenditure which is otherwise is of revenue nature cannot be treated as capital expenditure by applying the said Explanation and there is no such intention either explicit or even implicit in the provisions of the said

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed