DY CIT CC 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARANJA TERMINAL AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.6897 & 6898/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

section (1) to Sec. 221 of the Act. Further, rebutting the observations of the CIT(A) that the assessee had failed to pay its admitted tax liability due to financial constraints, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that the said observation was factually incorrect as the assessee had sufficient funds parked as deposits with the bank. It was, thus

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

249/- (b) Club Expenses Rs. 58,347/ (b) Club Expenses Rs. 58,347/- (c) Penalty Expenses Rs. 16,13,694/ (c) Penalty Expenses Rs. 16,13,694/ (d) Depreciation Rs. 92,381/ preciation Rs. 92,381/- (e) Common Expenses related to EOU unit Rs. 1,86,424/ (e) Common Expenses related to EOU unit Rs. 1,86,424/ (e) Common

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

249/- (b) Club Expenses Rs. 58,347/ (b) Club Expenses Rs. 58,347/- (c) Penalty Expenses Rs. 16,13,694/ (c) Penalty Expenses Rs. 16,13,694/ (d) Depreciation Rs. 92,381/ preciation Rs. 92,381/- (e) Common Expenses related to EOU unit Rs. 1,86,424/ (e) Common Expenses related to EOU unit Rs. 1,86,424/ (e) Common

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), 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

section 147 of the Act on 28/12/2018, the Assessing Officer disallowed following on on 28/12/2018, the 28/12/2018, the Assessing Officer disallowed Assessing Officer disallowed expenses: (i) Business promotion expenses amounting to Business promotion expenses amounting to ₹3,72,89,606/ 606/- ; (ii) Depreciation on ‘yacht ‘yacht’ amounting to ₹29,62,433/-and (iii) Repair expenses of the yacht amounting

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

section 147 of the Act on 28/12/2018, the Assessing Officer disallowed following on on 28/12/2018, the 28/12/2018, the Assessing Officer disallowed Assessing Officer disallowed expenses: (i) Business promotion expenses amounting to Business promotion expenses amounting to ₹3,72,89,606/ 606/- ; (ii) Depreciation on ‘yacht ‘yacht’ amounting to ₹29,62,433/-and (iii) Repair expenses of the yacht amounting

OLEANDER FARMS P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Transfer Of File To The Ao Of The Assessee. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

depreciation relatable to earlier assessment year in terms of clause (III) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act?" The relevant facts of that case noted in para no. 2 of the decision are that the AO in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, had made several additions, relying upon the incriminating material found in the course

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

249 19. Rajashree Cement 3,45,675 20. Cement South 47,05,613 21. Dharani Cement 1,76,495 22. BGU 8,42,171 23. Cement Marketing – East 70,42,133 24. Cement Marketing – West 30,75,557 25. Cement Marketing – North 4,20,958 26. Cement Marketing – South 13,50,989 27. RMC 24,04,935 28. Birla White

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

249 19. Rajashree Cement 3,45,675 20. Cement South 47,05,613 21. Dharani Cement 1,76,495 22. BGU 8,42,171 23. Cement Marketing – East 70,42,133 24. Cement Marketing – West 30,75,557 25. Cement Marketing – North 4,20,958 26. Cement Marketing – South 13,50,989 27. RMC 24,04,935 28. Birla White

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation amounting to Rs 10,76,38,455 made in accordance with the provisions of section 32 of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL PRINERS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aacca6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation as per section 139(3) and section 80 of the Act. 2. During hearing, the ld. DR, Shri M. Murli, advanced arguments, which are identical to the ground raised. On the other hand, Shri Mayur Kishnadwala, ld. counsel for the assessee, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by contending that the issue is covered in favour

DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDILA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1491/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 9(2)(2) Credila Financial Services R.No. 665A, 6 T H Floor, Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, B-301 Citi Point, V. Mumbai-400020 Next To Kohinoor Continental Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccc8789P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

249 ITR 795(SC) has affirmed the decisions of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case CIT v. Shri Subhulaxmi Mills Limited(supra) by holding that Section 79 has no applicability so far as carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation is concerned. The relevant portion of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

VIMALA JAYANTILAL PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

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

3) and in making various disallowances and\nadditions, which are unjustified, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural\njustice. The appellant denies his liability to be assessed at the income determined\nby the Ld. AO.\n2. Disallowance of Additional Usage Period Depreciation Machinery That the Ld.\nAO erred in disallowing additional depreciation of Rs 29,07,161/- on the ground

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

249 ITR 533. 6.5 On the other hand, learned D.R. vehemently relied upon the order passed by the AO. 6.6 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, the assessee had made investment in redeemable preferential shares of Tata Sons Ltd. which the AO, inter-alia, held to be in violation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

249 ITR 533. 6.5 On the other hand, learned D.R. vehemently relied upon the order passed by the AO. 6.6 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, the assessee had made investment in redeemable preferential shares of Tata Sons Ltd. which the AO, inter-alia, held to be in violation

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

249 ITR 533. 6.5 On the other hand, learned D.R. vehemently relied upon the order passed by the AO. 6.6 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, the assessee had made investment in redeemable preferential shares of Tata Sons Ltd. which the AO, inter-alia, held to be in violation