RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 30.11.2018 and added the above amounts to book profit 4 Reliance Industries Ltd. of the appellant and computed the book profit u7s 115JB of the Act at Rs.10763,40.22,838/- 7. Aggrieved the order passed under section 154, the assessee filed appeal with the CIT(A), who confirmed the order

M/S. BIRLA EDUTECH LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation by invoking the provisions of section 79 of the Act.” 3. Ground no. 3 is taken up first, being a legal issue, which challenges the jurisdiction of AO to have invoked the impugned action u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter (“the Act”) (Rectification

ASST. CIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TILAKNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1355/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) Acit-1(3)(1), Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Limited. 3Rd Floor, Indl.Assurance Bldg. Jd Tata Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaact-6047-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 04/01/2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing & Selling Of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The 2 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,19,12,503/- On 30/09/2009. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 07/12/2011. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S. 154 Of The Act Dated 18/03/2013 To Rectify The Alleged Mistake In Assessment Order On Two Counts:

rectification order passed u/s.154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) The CIT(A) vide impugned order accepted appeal of the assessee and quashed the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act, on the ground that the issued raised u/s. 154 of the Act is beyond the scope. Hence, the present appeal by the Department

AUTO FINANCE ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.259/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Auto Finance Enterprises Acit-Circle 12(3) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 41, Nariman Bhavan, 221, Nariman Point, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafa-2325-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

rectification u/s 154, held as under: - 7. The next question for our consideration is whether assessee could claim depreciation under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. HICKSON DADAJEE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Income Tax Officer Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 570, Aayakar Mazannine Floor, Bhawan, Mamasaheb Varerkar Bridge, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Grant Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aaach 0986 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul J. Shah Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J M: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) & Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under: 1. "Whether In Facts & Circumstances Of The Ease & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Order Passed By Ao U/S 154 Rs 250 Dated 31.03.2021 As "Bad In Law Without Appreciating The Fact That Earlier Order Was Inadvertently Passed Only "U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act & The Second Order Was Passed U/S 250 Rs 154 Of The It Act" To Correct These Bonafide Mistake Occurred & Hence The Same Is Covered By The Provisions Of Section 292 B Of The Act.

rectification of any error. Now after passing of the order of the Tribunal on 14.12.2020 and after giving effect to the order, the ld. A.O. issued a notice u/s. 154 of the Act on 25.03.202 asking the assessee why the claim of the unabsorbed depreciation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 1989-90 M/S. Narangs International Dy. Cit, Rg.1(2), Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Ambassador Hotel, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacn2084L (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation. ii) The appellant submits that u/s 154(7) of the Act no rectification could be done after the expiry

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

rectification order on 09/02/2007 u/s. 154, recomputing the deduction allowable u/s. 33AC of the Act, at Rs.46,00,00,000/- and reducing the assessed income to Rs.47,67,42,540/-. In both these orders, unabsorbed depreciation

ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI vs. FUN MULTIPLEX P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-11(1) M/S. Fun Multiplex Pvt. Room No.439, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 844/4, Shah Industrial Vs. M.K. Marg, Estate, Off New Link Road, Mumbai-20 Opp. Laxmi Industrial Estate, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400053 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaace8924E Revenue By Shri Asghar Zain (Dr) Respondent By Shri Jay B. Bhansali & Hitendra Bhandari (Dr)

u/s 154 as there was no mistake much less mistake apparent from 8 Fun Multiplex P. Ltd. records. In any case, this action could not have been taken by the AO while passing appeal effect order to the order of Ld. CIT(A). Thus, viewed from any angle, action of the AO is legally invalid and beyond jurisdiction

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

rectification order is separate proceedings and assessee had failed to file the relevant appeal. There may be several reasons for the delay but what is relevant is the circumstance or situation, which had prevented the assessee to comply with the proceedings. Whether the delay is negligence or carelessness. Hence, for the sake of overall justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

rectification order is separate proceedings and assessee had failed to file the relevant appeal. There may be several reasons for the delay but what is relevant is the circumstance or situation, which had prevented the assessee to comply with the proceedings. Whether the delay is negligence or carelessness. Hence, for the sake of overall justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

JMD AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

depreciation was given while framing the assessment order for the relevant assessment year. However, the AO rejected the application u/s 154 filed by the assessee on the reason that with regard to the 1st ground there is no mistake apparent from record, which can be rectified. On the 2nd ground, the AO dismissed the rectification

ACUITY HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Acuity Holdings Private The Income Tax Officer – Limited, 3(2)(2), C-1-5, Sarathi Chs Ltd., Mumbai Khira Nagar, S.V. Road, Vs. Santacruz- (W), Mumbai - 400016 Pan: Aafcm3366D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Samatha Mullamudi (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2020

rectification u/s 154 of the Act. However, the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee passed the order u/s 154 of the Act and determined the total income u/s 115JB to Rs. 68,17,840/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed

RMC READMIX(INDIA) P. LTD ( NOW AMALGAMATED WITH RISM CEMENT LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rmc Readymix (India) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, P. Ltd., Central Circle -34, Windsor, 7Th Floor, C.S.T Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Vidyanagri, Kalina, Mumbai - 400020 Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400098 Pan : Aaacr4938D (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 154 of the Act. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. counsel. In our considered view, since the AO had not allowed the legitimate claims of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decide the issues raised by the assessee on merits instead of holding that the assessee is free to file applications for rectification

DR. D. Y. PATIL VIDYAPEETH SOCIETY,PUNE vs. JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

u/s 154 of the Act with limited jurisdiction of rectification of order in the case of a 'mistake apparent on record'. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1994] 77 Taxman 43/119931 203 ITR 497, while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

DR. D. Y. PATIL VIDYAPEETH SOCIETY,PUNE vs. JT. CIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

u/s 154 of the Act with limited jurisdiction of rectification of order in the case of a 'mistake apparent on record'. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1994] 77 Taxman 43/119931 203 ITR 497, while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

DR. D. Y. PATIL VIDYAPEETH SOCIETY,PUNE vs. JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

u/s 154 of the Act with limited jurisdiction of rectification of order in the case of a 'mistake apparent on record'. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1994] 77 Taxman 43/119931 203 ITR 497, while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHREE BAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Shree Bal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Osd – 2(3) Office No. 4, Buona Casa Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Opp. Kashmir Art Emporium Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs1781J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Osd – 2(3) V. M/S. Shree Bal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Office No. 4, Buona Casa Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 2Nd Floor, Opp. Kashmir Art Emporium Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1781J (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation, legal expenses, repairs and maintenance, salary and bonus, etc., to arrive at profit of ₹.13,61,587/-. 6. With the above observation of the Assessing Officer, we observe that assessee has taken five grounds of appeal before us and Ld. AR submitted that assessee is not pressing Ground No. 1 and 5, accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. With regard

SHREE BAL CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT OSD 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Shree Bal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Osd – 2(3) Office No. 4, Buona Casa Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Opp. Kashmir Art Emporium Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs1781J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Osd – 2(3) V. M/S. Shree Bal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Office No. 4, Buona Casa Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 2Nd Floor, Opp. Kashmir Art Emporium Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1781J (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation, legal expenses, repairs and maintenance, salary and bonus, etc., to arrive at profit of ₹.13,61,587/-. 6. With the above observation of the Assessing Officer, we observe that assessee has taken five grounds of appeal before us and Ld. AR submitted that assessee is not pressing Ground No. 1 and 5, accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. With regard