RISHABH METALS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CPC, DCIT -CIR 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerishabh Metals & Chemicals V. Dcit-Circle -1(3)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 4Th Floor, Eross Theatre Bldg Mumbai - 400020 Jt Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr2214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

36(1)(va) is judicially held to be decisive for determining the disallowance in the computation of total income, there is no good reason to proceed on the basis that payment having been made after this due date is indicative of the disallowance of expenditure in question. While preparing tax audit report, the auditor is expected to report the information

SHETH CREATORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

SHETH CREATORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENT. CIR-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

SHETH CREATORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH CREATORS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

SHETH CREATORS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. As a result, ground no. 1(a) raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. The next issue arising in present appeal is pertaining to disallowance of Rs. 14,52,311 as personal expenditure incurred on motor cars, salary and bonus to driver and depreciation

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation on value of investments and re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), in respect of provisions of bad debts, as well as bad debt written off. 4. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT-2, Mumbai has issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to explain

NEETA TOURS AND TRAVELS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalneeta Tours & Travels, D-1, Hari Bhakti Compound, Retibunder, Opp. Dowellss Co., Ghodbunder Road, Kashimira, Thane-401104. Pan: Aaefn3413G ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Room No.27, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. 162, Midc, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Hiten P. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 30.05.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

36(1) (va) by the Finance Act, 2021 which is clarificatory in nature and have retrospective effect. Moreover, since hearing of the matter till dictation of the order, there is a development on the issue by virtue of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

depreciation on leased assets solely to the income\nfrom leasing\n(iii) AO has allocated interest expenditure (other than foreign currency\nborrowings) to income from housing business and other income in the\nratio of 66.25:33.75\n(iv) AO has allocated other expenses to income from housing business\nand other income in the ratio of 80:20.\n8.3. Ld. Assessing

JHB HOSPITALITY SERVICES,MUMBAI vs. CPC, BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejhb Hospitality Services V. Centralized Processing Centre 10, Daulat Mansion 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur Barrack Road, New Marine Lines Hosur Road, Uttarahalli, Holi Mumbai - 400020 Bengaluru-560100 Pan: Aalfj3891R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sunil Hirawat Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at anytime before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble ITAT to decide the is appeal according to law.” 6. At the time

USHA GARMENTS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CPC,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleusha Garments Manufacturing Co. V. Dcit, Cpc Private Limited Bangalore- 560500 Plot No 13, Wicel, Central Road Opposite Seepz, Midc Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aaacu1397H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Vranda U Matkari

36(1)(va) Page No. | 3 Usha Garments Manufacturing Co. Private Limited of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if paid after due date of payment, deduction of same is not allowable. 9. Considered the submissions made by the Ld.DR and material placed on record, on perusal of the material placed on record, we find that, it is undisputed fact that

M/S GULABCHAND & CO,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC BANGALORE., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

36(1)(va) of the Act as made by AO need to be confirmed. And we 3 A.Y. 2019-20 M/s. Gulabchand & Co. find that, it is undisputed fact that payment of PF & ESI amounting to ₹.4,29,144/- was not made within the due date prescribed under the PF & ESI Act. The relevant observation and finding given

BABA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ,DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2970/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Commissioner Of Baba Hotels Pvt. Ltd Income Tax (Appeals) Mumbai बिधम/ Delhi. A-101, Bhaveshwar Arcade, Vs. National Faceless Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar(W), Appeal Centre, New Mumbai 400086 Delhi स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccb9563C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Ms. Anita Thakur अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Minal Kamble Sr.Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 03.10.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Ay 2018-19 In Relation To The Adjustment In The Intimation U/S 143(1).

36 (1)(va). The same has disallowable now in view of the judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Checkmate Services Private Limited vs. CIT” where in Supreme Court has observed and laid down the following proposition:-  Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme

INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S IMAGE INK INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 6(1)(1) V. M/S. Image Ink India Pvt. Ltd., 30, Near Hira Mistan Hotel Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Yusuf Meherali Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai - 400003 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aacci6706J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if paid after due date of payment, deduction of same is not allowable. 7. Considered the submissions of the Ld.DR and material placed on record, on perusal of the material placed on record, we find that, it is undisputed fact that at payment of PF & ESI for sums amounting

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Depreciation and amortization expense 98,570,761 Operating Cost (OC) 916,462,758 Operating Profit (OP) 136,396,203 OP/OC 14.88% Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7. Since the PLI of the comparables is in the range of 9.2% to 15.54% and assessee's PLI being 14.88%, the assessee treated the transactions with

RAMESH NARAYAN SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3172/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit, Cpc Ramesh Narayan Shetty Cpc Bangalore Prop M/S Geeta Caterers बिधम/ Karnataka 407, Natasha Tower, Juhu Vs. 560100 Versova Link Road, Andheri(W) Mumbai-400061 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaeps2794R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Minal Kamble Sr.Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 15.11.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Ay 2019-20 In Relation To The Adjustment In The Intimation U/S 143(1).

36(1)(va), and therefore, as per provision of section 3 I.T.A. No. 3172/Mum/2022 Ramesh Narayan Shetty 143(1)(a)(iv) adjustment is justify. After detail discussion he finally relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court “Checkmate Services Private Limited vs. CIT”. 6. On perusal of the material placed on record, we find that, it is undisputed fact

SHRI MAHABIR DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahabir Dyeing & Printing V. Dcit – 4(3)(1) Mills Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 649, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan 510/511, Kakad Market, 306 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaacm5098H (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(va) of Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 3. The Assessee in the return of income filed on 27.10.2018 had declared total income of ₹.1,38,52,870/-. The said return was processed online by CPC Bangalore and accordingly, adjustment of ₹.4,37,188/- was made in the intimation u/s.143(1) on account of late payment

ANIBRAIN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CPC, INCOME TAX DEP., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleanibrain Digital Technologies V. Dcit Private Limited Centralized Processing Centre B1, 4Th Floor, Cerebrum It Park Income-Tax Department Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014 Bangalore- Pan: Aafca6342K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Praveen Jain Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

36(1)(va) of the Act based on reporting in tax audit report. 1.2 The Appellant prays that the order u/s. 143(1) of the Act, be quashed and set aside.’’ 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) and further he submitted that the payment of employees’ contribution