GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

justice during the course of appellate proceedings before the FAA. Ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. 30. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.4 is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.3,76,000/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of legal and professional charges. 31. During the course of assessment

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

justice during the course of appellate proceedings before the FAA. Ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. 30. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.4 is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.3,76,000/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of legal and professional charges. 31. During the course of assessment

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

justice during the course of appellate proceedings before the FAA. Ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. 30. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.4 is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.3,76,000/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of legal and professional charges. 31. During the course of assessment

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

justice during the course of appellate proceedings before the FAA. Ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. 30. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.4 is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.3,76,000/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of legal and professional charges. 31. During the course of assessment

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

justice during the course of appellate proceedings before the FAA. Ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. 30. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.4 is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.3,76,000/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of legal and professional charges. 31. During the course of assessment

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

justice during the course of appellate proceedings before the FAA. Ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. 30. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.4 is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.3,76,000/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of legal and professional charges. 31. During the course of assessment

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

justice during the course of appellate proceedings before the FAA. Ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. 30. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.4 is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.3,76,000/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of legal and professional charges. 31. During the course of assessment

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

justice during the course of appellate proceedings before the FAA. Ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. 30. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.4 is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.3,76,000/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of legal and professional charges. 31. During the course of assessment

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

justice during the course of appellate proceedings before the FAA. Ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. 30. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.4 is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.3,76,000/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of legal and professional charges. 31. During the course of assessment

MUMBAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to section 32 and 32A of the Act. The question before the Hon'ble Court was since, the claim of deduction was allowed without due verification whether the exercise of revisional jurisdiction was justified. After considering various 21 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. decisions, the Hon'ble High Court held

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

natural justice as far as the reasons, which formed the basis for the revision but were not part of the show cause notice issued u/s 263 are concerned. The order of the CIT passed u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned." 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere

NARANGS INTERNATIONAL HOTELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

natural justice." 7. Pursuant to the directions of the CIT(A), the A.O. in the set aside assessment issued summons to the 3 lessees viz. (i) Patheja Forgings., (2) Kedia Distilleries, (3) Agritech Hatcheries, which were duly complied with by them. The A.O. in the set aside order dtd. 30.3.2000 u/s 143(3) again disallowed depreciation

MAHARASHTA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIR 14(1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra State V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Electricity Distribution बनाम Of Income Tax,Circle14(1)(1)- Co. Ltd., Plot No. G-9, Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, Prakashgad, Anant Kanekar Maharishi Karve Road, Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai - 400020, Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra

natural justice have been grossly violated making the order vitiated on this P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2015-16 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. count itself. The ld.CIT(DR) could not rebut the observation in any manner during the hearing of the case before us. 5.1 Moreover, even more glaring mistake committed by the ld.PCIT is taking into

GENOM BIOTECH PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC -40, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

nature and hence the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of the same in all the years. 28. In the rejoinder, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished the advertisement bills along with advertisement materials before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. He submitted that there were certain deficiencies in certain bills like

VIR ALLOYS AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 11(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as aforesaid

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

Natural Justice have been duly complied. Therefore, the corresponding grounds been duly complied. Therefore, the corresponding grounds been duly complied. Therefore, the corresponding grounds of appeal are found to be unsubstantiated, made in a of appeal are found to be unsubstantiated, made in a of appeal are found to be unsubstantiated, made in a mechanical fashion and hence a mechanical

VIR ALLOYS AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 11(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as aforesaid

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

Natural Justice have been duly complied. Therefore, the corresponding grounds been duly complied. Therefore, the corresponding grounds been duly complied. Therefore, the corresponding grounds of appeal are found to be unsubstantiated, made in a of appeal are found to be unsubstantiated, made in a of appeal are found to be unsubstantiated, made in a mechanical fashion and hence a mechanical

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

natural justice. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on r dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the case ecord. In the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

natural justice and was valid under section 274 of the Act.\nAccordingly, the Ld.DR fully relied on the order of the Ld.AO and argued that the\nsaid notice issued by the Ld.AO on dated 27/12/2011 is valid notice. So the\npenalty will be sustained.\n5.\nThe Ld.AR invited our attention to the notice dated 27/12/2011 issued by\nthe ACIT, Central