CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

40A(7), without appreciating the fact that the same has been disallowed in the return of income. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,85,74,826/-, being payment of Employee's contribution to Employee Welfare Funds made beyond the 'due date' prescribed under the relevant statutes. 4. The Ld. Commissioner

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

40A(7), without appreciating the fact that the same has been disallowed in the return of income. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,85,74,826/-, being payment of Employee's contribution to Employee Welfare Funds made beyond the 'due date' prescribed under the relevant statutes. 4. The Ld. Commissioner

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

40A(7), without appreciating the fact that the same has been disallowed in the return of income. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,85,74,826/-, being payment of Employee's contribution to Employee Welfare Funds made beyond the 'due date' prescribed under the relevant statutes. 4. The Ld. Commissioner

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). 8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. 9. The undisputed facts as emerging from the record are that the Assessee-Company had filed return of income for the Assessment 5 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Year 2013-14 declaring a loss

GETINGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

40A(7) of the Act should be restricted to Rs. 8,23,852/- based on the tax audit report and the Appellant has suo moto disallowed the same, whereas the Appellant has inadvertently disallowed the higher amount of Rs. 10,38,117/- 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting the allowance of Rs. 2,14,265 which

M/S. KHEDUT OIL TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O, -22(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Khedut Oil Traders Vs. Ito – 22(2)(1) D-403 / Godavari Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Sir P.M Road, Off Tilak Road, Lalbaug. Parel Santacruz (W), Mumbai Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk1294J (Applicant) (Respondent)

40A(2)(b) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 as per Partnership Deed, and statement of account duly Audited. That due to my misunderstanding and misinformation given to my representative J.G. Vora & Co., he in response to the notice from CIT (A) having DIN: ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2021- 22/1036138101(1) Α.Υ. 2011-12. - Date of Hearing - 19/10/2021 replied vide his letter

SANGIR PLASTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

40A(7) and sec. 43B of the Act in both the appeals. Hence both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 9. We noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act without condoning the delay. However, we notice from the reasons

SANGIR PLASTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

40A(7) and sec. 43B of the Act in both the appeals. Hence both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 9. We noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act without condoning the delay. However, we notice from the reasons

SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

40A(7) and hence the ground raised by the assessee in this regard was dismissed by the CIT(A) as infructuous. With regard to the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) towards delayed remittance of PF/ESI. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate

MITHALAL BHAWARLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD - 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

40A(7) and hence the ground raised by the assessee in this regard was dismissed by the CIT(A) as infructuous. With regard to the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) towards delayed remittance of PF/ESI. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate

LINFOX LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE (10)(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

7. erred in upholding the levy of interest amounting to Rs.2,46,966 under Section 234C of the Act in relation to the aforementioned additions made by the AO. Penalty proceedings 8. erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act and has held that the appellant under-reported revenues for the captioned

BLOOM SEAL CONTAINERS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE IT DEPT , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhribloom Seal Containers Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Pvt. Ltd. It Department, 4Th Floor, Ready Money Bengluru Terrace, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Naka, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Appellant .. Respondent

40A(7) of the Act in the return of income and therefore, making further disallowance under section 43B of the Act on account of such variance has resulted in double disallowance of the same amount in two different sections. 1.3 In doing so the CIT(A) ignored the certificate issued by the tax auditor duly certifying the correct amount

M/S. SALONI JEWELLERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the ad-hoc disallowance levied by Assessing Officer of printing and stationery expenses, exhibition expenses and Labor charges expenses amounting to Rs. 1,89,75,279/-. Assessment Year

M/S. SALONI JEWELLERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the ad-hoc disallowance levied by Assessing Officer of printing and stationery expenses, exhibition expenses and Labor charges expenses amounting to Rs. 1,89,75,279/-. Assessment Year

PARIJAT CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 28 2 1, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Assessing Officer and CIT (A) have failed to consider the expenses incurred to earn tower rent income and wrongly treated entire gross receipts as income under the head "Income from Other Sources". 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

JAICO PUBLISHING HOUSE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

condonation of delay shall enable the authority to reconsider the FTC claim on merits. 5. Being aggrieved by the above directions of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before this Bench claiming that having filed the original FTC within the specified time, the revised Form no. 67 filed subsequently to rectify the mistake in the original form

ARMANI EXPORTS,MUM vs. PCIT-20, MUM

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Armani Exports Pcit-20 209-C, Building No.2, Room No. 418, Piramal Chamber, Vs. Mittal Industrial Estate, Andheri Kurla Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400 12 Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aagfa 0528 F (Appellant) : (Respondent)

section 263 order can be appealed before the ITAT and, hence, has filed this present appeal with a delay. The ld. AR prayed for condoning the said delay. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue opposed for condoning the delay. 2 Armani Exports vs. PCIT 3. Having heard both the sides, we deem

EWOW AV PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -9(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Ewow Av Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 302, Mahavir Ind. Estate, Income Tax, Off. Mahakali Caves, Circle – 9(2)(2), Andheri East, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 (Pan : Aagca8548J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of trading of audio and video products. It filed its return of income on 30.09.2015 reporting total income as a loss of Rs.37,45,419/-. There are three additions/disallowances made in the assessment completed

D.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), ROOM NO. 802, 8TH , MUMBAI vs. M/S. KAPSTONE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

40A(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 towards the payment made to a sister concern company M/s Keystone Realtors. Since the amount has been taken to closing work-in- progress, no separate addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee at this stage; however, closing WIP has to be reduced by the said amount. Further aggrieved, both