DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

2. GROUND NO. 2: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES 2. GROUND NO. 2: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES 2. GROUND NO. 2: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,01,53,779/ AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,01,53,779/-: 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

depreciation allowance has been computed. Explanation 2.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not neces-sarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of this section." 16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA (E- VIJAYA BANK), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

143(2) of the Act was ever issued by the Department, the findings rendered. by the High Court and the Tribunal and the conclusion arrived at were correct. We, therefore, see no reason to take a different view in the matter. 11. These Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.” (Emphasis Supplied) 18. In view of the above judgment

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.

section 2(28C) to mean a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax or an Additional Commissioner of Income-tax under section 117(1). Section 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint Commissioner. The expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in 'section 2(28C). The Commissioner of Income

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that ■ sections 28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections

BANK OF BARODA (ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is\ndismissed

143(2) of the Act is quite clear from the\ndecision in Hotel Blue Moon's case (supra). The issue that however\nneeds to be considered is the impact of Section 292BB of the Act.\n9.\nAccording to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had\nparticipated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice\nwould be deemed

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

2), which finally culminated in the assessment order dated 30th December culminated in the assessment order dated 30th December culminated in the assessment order dated 30th December 2008 under section 143(3). It is therefore e 2008 under section 143(3). It is therefore evident that vident that Respondent No. 1 after passing the original assessment Respondent No. 1 after

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD ( FORMERLY KNOAWN AS I-FLEX SOLUTIONS LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2004-05

depreciation of Rs. 10,500,000/-.” The assessee has also raised additional grounds which are as under:- “4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 31 December 2009 is bad in law and void ab initio

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation on motor car.” 3. The first issue arising in present appeal is pertaining to disallowance of Rs.32,140, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section

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

143(3) of the Act for various assessment years starting from 2003-04 to 2010-11 without any adverse findings and copies of such assessment orders have been placed in the Paper Book at pages 399 to 472. It is also an uncontroverted fact that that no profits are earned from the activity of executing projects of MUTP

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

143(3) of the Act for various assessment years starting from 2003-04 to 2010-11 without any adverse findings and copies of such assessment orders have been placed in the Paper Book at pages 399 to 472. It is also an uncontroverted fact that that no profits are earned from the activity of executing projects of MUTP

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

143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar

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

143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar

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

143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar

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

143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar

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

143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar

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

143(3) of the Act for various assessment years starting from 2003-04 to 2010-11 without any adverse findings and copies of such assessment orders have been placed in the Paper Book at pages 399 to 472. It is also an uncontroverted fact that that no profits are earned from the activity of executing projects of MUTP

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

143(3) of the Act for various assessment years starting from 2003-04 to 2010-11 without any adverse findings and copies of such assessment orders have been placed in the Paper Book at pages 399 to 472. It is also an uncontroverted fact that that no profits are earned from the activity of executing projects of MUTP