THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

depreciation. Looking to the nature of the advantage which the assessee obtained in a commercial sense, expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West 12 ITA NO. 803 & 850/MUM/2009

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

145,11,43,021 loss (A+B) 1.7 Without prejudice to the aforesaid, we respectfully submit that in respect of the above mentioned issue on which revision under section 263 of the Act is sought to be exercised, is on issues which were covered in the original assessment order dated March 12, 2013 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C

VISHWANATH ACHARAYA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7976/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

depreciation is claimed and hence the claim of the assessee was rejected. With respect to claim of Flat No. 1103 and 1203 , the CIT(A) observed that these are newly acquired properties during the previous year. The claim of the assessee that these flats were used for businesses was not supported by any documentary evidence and the finding

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

3) of the Act disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held\nthat goodwill is included in the definition of intangible assets being any other\nbusiness or commercial rights of similar nature has been settled by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra). However, the\nquestion that has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

145. While interpreting a provision containing a non-obstante clause, it should first be ascertained what the enacting part of the Section provides, on a fair construction of the words used according to their natural and ordinary meaning, and the non-obstante clause is to be understood as operating to set aside as no longer valid anything contained

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

3) of the Act disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held\nthat goodwill is included in the definition of intangible assets being any other\nbusiness or commercial rights of similar nature has been settled by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra). However, the\nquestion that has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

MARSHALL PRODUCE BROKERS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

depreciation cannot be denied in the subsequent years. be denied in the subsequent years. 6. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental income of Rs. 26,94,240 made by the AO in respect

MARSHALL PRODUCE BROKERS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

depreciation cannot be denied in the subsequent years. be denied in the subsequent years. 6. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental income of Rs. 26,94,240 made by the AO in respect

DCIT-3(2)(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. MARSHALL PRODUCE BROKERS COMPANY PVT LTD, NARIMAN POINT

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

depreciation cannot be denied in the subsequent years. be denied in the subsequent years. 6. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental income of Rs. 26,94,240 made by the AO in respect

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

Section 145(3) of the Act but has only challenged the gross profit rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], while the Revenue is aggrieved by the Tax (Appeals

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

Section 145(3) of the Act but has only challenged the gross profit rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], while the Revenue is aggrieved by the Tax (Appeals

DCIT (OSD)8(2), MUMBAI vs. KUSA CHEMICALS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Dcit(Osd)-8(2), M/S Kusa Chemicals Pvt. Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 6, J. K. Industrial Estate Vs. M.K. Road, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (Road), Mumbai-400093 Pan No.Aaack2777R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 145(3) of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to disregard the books of account maintained by the assessee if he is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts maintained by the assessee. In the present case, the reasons advanced by the Assessing Officer to reject the, books of account, in our view, do not justify