UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

3 of the Companies Act,\n1956. In view thereof, clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section\n115JB is not applicable to its case.\n21. Further, section 11 of the Acquisition Act mandates that \"For\nthe purposes of Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), every\ncorresponding new bank shall be deemed to be an Indian\ncompany and α company

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Act by the revised claim of lower amount of depreciation made during the course of assessment proceedings. 3 I . T . A . N o . 3 2

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

3 of the Companies Act,\n1956. In view thereof, clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section\n115JB is not applicable to its case.\n21. Further, section 11 of the Acquisition Act mandates that \"For\nthe purposes of Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), every\ncorresponding new bank shall be deemed to be an Indian\ncompany and α company

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

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

Appeal is allowed

2) of the Act would start running from the date of the original assessment order. In that case assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.03.1998. Subsequently, reassessment proceeding were initiated in respect of three issues viz., (i) the expenses claimed for share issue, (ii) bad and doubtful debts and, (iii) excess depreciation

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

3. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and same is dismissed along with connected application(s)." The judgment is of no assistance to the appellant for the Division Bench observed that there were findings of fact that the assessee/appellant had in that case not been acting to advance any object concerning general public utility. The judgment was, therefore, based

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

3. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and same is dismissed along with connected application(s)." The judgment is of no assistance to the appellant for the Division Bench observed that there were findings of fact that the assessee/appellant had in that case not been acting to advance any object concerning general public utility. The judgment was, therefore, based

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

3. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and same is dismissed along with connected application(s)." The judgment is of no assistance to the appellant for the Division Bench observed that there were findings of fact that the assessee/appellant had in that case not been acting to advance any object concerning general public utility. The judgment was, therefore, based

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

3. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and same is dismissed along with connected application(s)." The judgment is of no assistance to the appellant for the Division Bench observed that there were findings of fact that the assessee/appellant had in that case not been acting to advance any object concerning general public utility. The judgment was, therefore, based

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

3. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and same is dismissed along with connected application(s)." The judgment is of no assistance to the appellant for the Division Bench observed that there were findings of fact that the assessee/appellant had in that case not been acting to advance any object concerning general public utility. The judgment was, therefore, based

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

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

depreciation made in AY 2007-08. 5. We shall take up the first issue relating to disallowance made u/s 40A(2)(a) of the Act. In assessment year 2008-09, the assessee paid incentives to its three directors aggregating to Rs.45.00 lakhs. Since the identical incentive payments made to the directors in the immediately preceding year was disallowed, the assessing

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

depreciation made in AY 2007-08. 5. We shall take up the first issue relating to disallowance made u/s 40A(2)(a) of the Act. In assessment year 2008-09, the assessee paid incentives to its three directors aggregating to Rs.45.00 lakhs. Since the identical incentive payments made to the directors in the immediately preceding year was disallowed, the assessing

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

depreciation made in AY 2007-08. 5. We shall take up the first issue relating to disallowance made u/s 40A(2)(a) of the Act. In assessment year 2008-09, the assessee paid incentives to its three directors aggregating to Rs.45.00 lakhs. Since the identical incentive payments made to the directors in the immediately preceding year was disallowed, the assessing

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 32(2) of the Act as the same becomes current year’s depreciation while computing the profits from business or profession of the eligible unit for the purpose of working out ITA 7034/Mum/2013 and 3

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

depreciation on the cost of membership card in the earlier years. 2 Techno Shares&Stocks Ltd. 35. As regards the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd., I find that as per clause (ha) inserted in Explanation 1 to Section 2(42A) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2003, period for 36. I thus agree with the view

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3