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

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

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

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

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

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

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

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

BALMOHAN VIDYAMANDIR TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) I(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust, Ito (Exemption)-1 (1), 42, 59-65, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai 400028 Pan: Aaatb0099C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust, Ito (Exemption)-1 (1), 42, 59-65, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai 400028 Pan: Aaatb0099C (Appellant) (Respondent)

253 of Income-tax Act provide specific category of person i.e. “Any assessee” aggrieved by the orders provided under Clause (a) to (f) to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, there is no further scope for any other aggrieved person or person(s) interested in the outcome of appeal to approach the Tribunal as intervener. No contrary law is brought

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

depreciation allowance or any other allow ance under this Act has been computed. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

253(3) of the Act, are being treated as being filed within limitation as the appeal has been filed within the extended time allowed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order, dated 23/03/2020 and 27/04/2021 passed in the Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 read with order, dated 23/09/2021, passed

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

Section 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue has submitted an application dated 01-08-2018 praying for condoning delay in filing this appeal with tribunal late by 27 days beyond the time stipulated u/s. 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue has explained the delay in filing this appeal late with tribunal mainly due to interpretation

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)

depreciation relating to earlier years could not be denied. 3. The Assessee may be allowed to carry forward brought forward loss relating to AY 2007-08 to 2009-10 since the provisions of section 79 of IT Act has no application to it. 4. The Assessee may be allowed to carry forward brought forward loss relating

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

253(3) of the Act providing limitation in in filing in the appeal to the ITAT, to the ITAT, are plain and unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for filing the appeal before the filing the appeal

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

253(3) of the Act providing limitation in in filing in the appeal to the ITAT, to the ITAT, are plain and unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for filing the appeal before the filing the appeal

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

Depreciation. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said disallowance made by the Ld. A.O. is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A. O. erred in making an addition

VISTA ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 143(3) of the Act was originally passed on 10th December 2010 determining the total income at ` 8,36,49,253. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer being of the opinion that in view of subsidy on entertainment tax granted by the State Government the cost of acquisition of all the assets on which the assessee has claimed depreciation