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 115 JB of the Act at ₹52,25,837/ 837/-. Since the tax on the book profit was less . Since the tax on the book profit was less than the normal assessed income normal assessed income, therefore, tax was computed on tax was computed on the assessed income under regular provisions. the assessed income under regular provisions

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 115 JB of the Act at ₹52,25,837/ 837/-. Since the tax on the book profit was less . Since the tax on the book profit was less than the normal assessed income normal assessed income, therefore, tax was computed on tax was computed on the assessed income under regular provisions. the assessed income under regular provisions

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 115 JB of the Act at ₹52,25,837/ 837/-. Since the tax on the book profit was less . Since the tax on the book profit was less than the normal assessed income normal assessed income, therefore, tax was computed on tax was computed on the assessed income under regular provisions. the assessed income under regular provisions

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 115 JB of the Act at ₹52,25,837/ 837/-. Since the tax on the book profit was less . Since the tax on the book profit was less than the normal assessed income normal assessed income, therefore, tax was computed on tax was computed on the assessed income under regular provisions. the assessed income under regular provisions

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 115 JB of the Act at ₹52,25,837/ 837/-. Since the tax on the book profit was less . Since the tax on the book profit was less than the normal assessed income normal assessed income, therefore, tax was computed on tax was computed on the assessed income under regular provisions. the assessed income under regular provisions

VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

section 144C(15)(b) of the Act”, and thus disposed of the objections in view of lack of jurisdiction. The AO accordingly framed the impugned final assessment order dated 3 A.Y. 2009-10 Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. 05.12.2014 u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Act in which the total income was assessed at the same figure as returned

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MODISON METALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Depreciation- Additional depreciation- Assessment year 2004-05. Assessee purchased new assets during preceding previous year which were put to use for less than 180 days- Apart from normal deprecation, assessee was also eligible to claim additional depreciation at rate of 15 per cent for said new assets- Since assets were

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MODISON METALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Depreciation- Additional depreciation- Assessment year 2004-05. Assessee purchased new assets during preceding previous year which were put to use for less than 180 days- Apart from normal deprecation, assessee was also eligible to claim additional depreciation at rate of 15 per cent for said new assets- Since assets were

DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MODISON METALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Depreciation- Additional depreciation- Assessment year 2004-05. Assessee purchased new assets during preceding previous year which were put to use for less than 180 days- Apart from normal deprecation, assessee was also eligible to claim additional depreciation at rate of 15 per cent for said new assets- Since assets were

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MODISON METALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Depreciation- Additional depreciation- Assessment year 2004-05. Assessee purchased new assets during preceding previous year which were put to use for less than 180 days- Apart from normal deprecation, assessee was also eligible to claim additional depreciation at rate of 15 per cent for said new assets- Since assets were

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

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

MR. DOLLAR CHUNILAL MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1), MUMBAI

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

depreciable assets.\n3.2. The Ld.CIT(A),however,noted that the assessee had not claimed the exemption under section 54F in the return of income originally filed.On this basis,the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the assessee's submissions and dismissed the claim, observing as under:\n“5. Findings and Decision\n• The appellant failed to prosecute the appeal and did not comply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the cross appeal filed by the revenue as well as\nassessee stands dismissed

depreciation was\nclaimed, required to be added back to the computation of\nincome.\n• The Ld.AO further noted that, the assessee deducted tax on\nthe payment made to M/s. Yongnam Engineering &\nconstructions Pvt. Ltd., u/s.194C, instead of section 195/197.\nThe Ld.AO thus noted that the assessee deducted tax at lower\nrate than the prescribed rate. The Ld. AO was thus

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 151(1) of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 8-12-2009 was issued to the assessee company, which was duly served on the assessee company on 9-12-2009. The assessee company filed return of income in pursuance to notice dated 08- 12-2009 issued

M/S.SHANTISTAR BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos.891, 2528 & 2529/Mum/2018 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/S. Shantistar Builder Vs. Ito – 17(3)(3) 811, Embassy Centre, Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point, Mumbai Mk Road, Mumbai – – 400021. 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas0068B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Neelkanth Kandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri T.S. Khalsa. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Issues Involved In All Three Appeals Are Common & Identical. Hence Are Clubbed & Heard & Consolidated Order Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Up

46A(2) of income tax rules rejecting the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the Honble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the validity of reassessment proceedings beyond four years

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

depreciation allowance or any \nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment \nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections \n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : \n\n Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) \nof section 143 or this section has been made for the \nrelevant assessment year, no action