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

disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made. The Assessing Officer made addition

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

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

Section 43B of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 01/04/1988. The First Proviso made it clear that Section 43B shall not apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee in the next accounting year if it is paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands\ndismissed as infructuous

disallowance of\nvarious expenses made in the assessment order. If the delay is\nnot condoned, the appellant shall be highly prejudiced as\nsubstantial additions and demand will be confirmed without\naffording the appellant a sufficient opportunity to present it's\ncase.\n13. In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay of 94 days\nin filing the appeal

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Section\n43B shall not apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by\nthe assessee in the next accounting year if it is paid on or before\nthe due date for furnishing the return of income in respect of the\nprevious year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred\nand the evidence of such payment

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating out of seized material and hence, these are confirmed. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 29. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of unsecured loans as unexplained cash