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

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

disallowance of amortization expenses related to goodwill amounting to INR 68,03,68,000/- observing that the Assessee had not claimed deduction for the aforesaid amount in the computation of income under normal provisions of the Act. As regards claim of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to grant deduction under Section

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of amortization expenses related to goodwill amounting to INR 68,03,68,000/- observing that the Assessee had not claimed deduction for the aforesaid amount in the computation of income under normal provisions of the Act. As regards claim of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to grant deduction under Section

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of amortization expenses related to goodwill amounting to INR 68,03,68,000/- observing that the Assessee had not claimed deduction for the aforesaid amount in the computation of income under normal provisions of the Act. As regards claim of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to grant deduction under Section

DCIT CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

disallowance of amortization expenses related to goodwill amounting to INR 68,03,68,000/- observing that the Assessee had not claimed deduction for the aforesaid amount in the computation of income under normal provisions of the Act. As regards claim of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to grant deduction under Section

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) in its tax return. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) in its tax return. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) in its tax return. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) in its tax return. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) in its tax return. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) in its tax return. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) in its tax return. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that

ROYAL PALMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

133B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) to Royal Palms India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai verify Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) compliance, certain irregularities regarding deduction of tax at source was noticed. Accordingly, proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act were initiated against the assessee for the assessment years

ROYAL PALMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

133B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) to Royal Palms India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai verify Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) compliance, certain irregularities regarding deduction of tax at source was noticed. Accordingly, proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act were initiated against the assessee for the assessment years