DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

133(6) of the Act is selective and arbitrary and hence should be outrightly selective and arbitrary and hence should be outrightly selective and arbitrary and hence should be outrightly rejected. rejected. 6. The learned CIT The learned CIT-A erred on facts and in law in upholding the A erred on facts and in law in upholding the order

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation and disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the relief given by the CIT(A) towards bogus purchases. 4. The brief facts pertaining to the issue under consideration – The AO during the course of assessment proceeding issued notice under section 133(6

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1) of the act (now sixth proviso to section 32 (1) of the act) which proviso is not applicable to the facts of the appellant DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35DD OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMALGAMATION EXPENSES: ₹ 290,372/– 6) on the facts and in the circumstances

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1) of the act (now sixth proviso to section 32 (1) of the act) which proviso is not applicable to the facts of the appellant DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35DD OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMALGAMATION EXPENSES: ₹ 290,372/– 6) on the facts and in the circumstances

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

section 133(6) of the Act issued to M/s Taral returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce t and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce t and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce the said party

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

section 133(6) of the Act issued to M/s Taral returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce t and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce t and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce the said party

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

section 133(6) of the Act issued to M/s Taral returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce t and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce t and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce the said party

EBRAHIM ESSA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-9(2)(4), 115 Dathawala Wstate, Sv Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jogeshwari West, 400 102. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 4720 E Appellant Respondent

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred i the Ld. CIT(A) erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. K K VENTURA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands\ndismissed

133(6) were issued to the\nlenders, and though some responded, their replies were, in\nthe view of the Assessing Officer, inadequate to establish\neither creditworthiness or genuineness. He accordingly\nidentified twenty-one lenders, aggregating to ₹8,43,50,000/-,\nwhose loans were treated as unexplained and brought to tax\nunder section 68 of the Act.\nName of the Loan

M/S JASMINE COMPUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Circle 4(3)(1), Sh-1, Building 2A Wing, Pooja Nagar, Mumbai-401107. Vs. Cross Cabin Road, Bhayandar East, Thane, Mira Road S.O., Chimane, Thane-401107. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., 649, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. A 13 4Th Floor, Silver Oak, Bhatt Lane Vs. Road, Poisar Borivali West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent

133(6) of the Act, which were duly served upon and complied with by the relevant Act, which were duly served upon and complied with by the relevant Act, which were duly served upon and complied with by the relevant parties. It is further submitted that, in view of the consistency in parties. It is further submitted that, in view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JASMINE COMPUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Circle 4(3)(1), Sh-1, Building 2A Wing, Pooja Nagar, Mumbai-401107. Vs. Cross Cabin Road, Bhayandar East, Thane, Mira Road S.O., Chimane, Thane-401107. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., 649, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. A 13 4Th Floor, Silver Oak, Bhatt Lane Vs. Road, Poisar Borivali West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent

133(6) of the Act, which were duly served upon and complied with by the relevant Act, which were duly served upon and complied with by the relevant Act, which were duly served upon and complied with by the relevant parties. It is further submitted that, in view of the consistency in parties. It is further submitted that, in view

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI , PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE

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

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , MUMBAI

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

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

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

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

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

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions