ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

142(1) and 143(2) on 9`" December 2004 and ultimately completed the assessment for the impugned assessment year vide order dated 21st February 2005. Therefore, we have to examine firstly, whether there is an order of transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act, from the DCIT, Range-1(3) to the Addl. CIT, Range

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance the Ld. AR of the assessee and officer-in-charge of the assessee company appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. The A.O in course of assessment proceedings, find that the registration granted to the assessee u/s 12AA was cancelled w.e.f 09.10.2001. Therefore

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. KHANNA HOTEL P.LTD, MUMBAI

2)and 142 (1) of the Act to the assessee.After considering the submission of the assessee,about setting off of unabsorbed depreciation, the held that contention of the assessee with regard to section

ROSY BLUE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 46, (NOW DCIT CENT. CIR. 8(3)), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 4984/Mum/2016 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 1608/09, Prasad Chambers, Income Tax, Opera House Central Circle-46, Mumbai फनाभ/ (Now Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Vs. Circle 8(3), Mumbai) (अऩीराथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामीरेखासिं./Pan No. Aaccr 2413 B आमकयअऩीरसिं./ Ita No. 5829/Mum/2016 (ननधाायणवषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-46, Mumbai 1608/09, Prasad Chambers, फनाभ/ (Now Deputy Commissioner Of Opera House Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Vs. Mumbai) (अऩीराथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent)

section 142(2A) was directed only to extend the period of limitation under the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the issue and quash the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as being barred by limitation. 18. Even on merits of the case we note that the AO had made several adhoc additions/disallowances

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

142(1) dated 23.08.2018 was issued by the concerned Circle. In response to the above notice, the assessee furnished the requisite information called for on the ITBA system. Relevant findings of the AO Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai is reproduced to address the additional ground no. 1 as under:- “3. The assessee is involved in the business of reselling cosmetics

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

depreciation allowance. 7. In the light of the decision rendered by the ITAT Amritsar Bench in (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 447.(Amritsar-Trib.), the Assessment order is void abinitio as it has been framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s.147 instead of Section 144. 8. For these and other grounds that may be raised at the time of hearing the income

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

depreciation allowance. 7. In the light of the decision rendered by the ITAT Amritsar Bench in (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 447.(Amritsar-Trib.), the Assessment order is void abinitio as it has been framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s.147 instead of Section 144. 8. For these and other grounds that may be raised at the time of hearing the income

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

142 precedes section 143 and is not restricted only to the assessment order to be passed within the meaning of section 143(3) of the Act. In other words, on the filing of the return under section 139, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an in-appropriate claim has been made by the assessee in the return

GROUP INDIA P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation is nil; or (iv) to (vi) [***] (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions

SI GROUP INDIA P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation is nil; or (iv) to (vi) [***] (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee company is a member of Stock Exchange, Mumbai and carrying on the business of Share and Stock Broking. The assessee is also dealer & investor in shares and holds share both in its trading & investment portfolio. The assessee earned the tax free dividend income of Rs.6

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), 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 () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

142 taxmann.com 274 (Bangalore - Trib.) In this case, the Hon'ble ITAT had allowed depreciation on goodwill In this case, the Hon'ble ITAT had allowed depreciation on goodwill In this case, the Hon'ble ITAT had allowed depreciation on goodwill which arose pursuant to slump sale. Further, with respect to the which arose pursuant to slump sale. Further, with

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act as the case may be. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act as the case may be. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act reads as under: reads as under:- "Provided that wher "Provided that where