ACADEMY FOR GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowed the amount of Rs.3,67,37,500/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of share premium and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. 6 M/s. Academy for Global Education Services Private Limited 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid addition before the Ld. Commissioner. Before the Ld. Commissioner the Assessee filed the copy

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAJNI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

disallowed the interest merely on his own surmises and conjectures. In view of the above facts, we request Your Honour to delete addition of Rs. 2, 15,00,000 made under u/s. 68 of the Act and Rs. Rs. 8,79,780/-made u/s. 69C of the Act. 5. Further, the CIT(A) has dealt on the facts, credible evidences

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

142A of the Act as it stood at the relevant time could have been made without rejecting the books of account. Moreover, merely on the basis of the DVO's report, without any other material indicating escapement of income for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment for the year under consideration

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

142A of the Act as it stood at the relevant time could have been made without rejecting the books of account. Moreover, merely on the basis of the DVO's report, without any other material indicating escapement of income for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment for the year under consideration

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

142A of the Act as it stood at the relevant time could have been made without rejecting the books of account. Moreover, merely on the basis of the DVO's report, without any other material indicating escapement of income for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment for the year under consideration

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

142A. Estimate by Valuation Officer in certain cases.—(1) For the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in s. 69 or s. 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in s. 69A or s. 69B or fair market

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, (a) all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed, (b) Cross Objection 1 (1

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of provision in respect of reward points.” “Cross Objection 3: Claim for deduction of employee stock option plan (‘ESOP’) Expenses – Rs.556,89,74,883/-:- 3.1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer be directed to allow the ESOP expenses C.O. No. 26 & 27/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 under

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. RANK MERCANTILE P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallow the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, finding no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue, we uphold the same by dismissing ground no.1, raised by the Department. 9. In ground no.2, the Department has challenged the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing

DCIT- 12 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GURUASHISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

142A of the Act to the Assessing Officer on 13.07.2016. The Assessee was granted opportunity to file response to the special audit report and was also confronted with the findings given the survey report pertaining to a survey action under Section 133A of the Act conducted on the premises of the Assessee on 24.12.2013 (relevant to the Assessment Year

TESSITURA MONTI INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD) 8(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of depreciation on the alleged excess amount paid by the assessee to its associated enterprises towards the purchase of second-hand machinery. In order to justify the amount paid to the associated enterprises for the purchase of the second-hand machinery, the assessee in its transfer pricing report has placed reliance upon the valuation certificate obtained from Chartered Engineer

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowance to a certain percentage of the total bogus purchase amount and in not upholding the addition of 100% of bogus purchase amount? viii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of La Medica

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowance to a certain percentage of the total bogus purchase amount and in not upholding the addition of 100% of bogus purchase amount? viii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of La Medica

HARSHAD KUMAR AND BROS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18 (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2013-14

142A and 69B of the Act by sidelining the relevant provisions of the Act, as applicable. 15. Further admittedly, the DVO has adopted the value of the property as determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority, as on the date of executing formal purchase agreement dated 28.03.2013. 16. Both the authorities below have accepted the said valuation report by sidelining

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2003-04 being ITA No

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.6596/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Dcit-5(2) बनाम Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400099. Pan: Aaacj0920H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.6597/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Dcit-5(2) Jet Airways (India) Ltd. बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400099. Pan: Aaacj0920H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व ओर से / Revenue By : Ms Anu Krishna Aggarwal With Alok Johri (Dr) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Vijaya Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2017 आयकर अ"ध"नयम, 1961 क" धारा 254(1) के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) Per Pawan Singh, J.M. "या"यक सद"य Iou Iou Iou "संह के अनुसार: Iou 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee U/S 253 Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Even Day Of Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Dated 28.08.2014 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2003-04 & 2007-08. 2. In Ita No. 6896/Mum/2014, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

142A, the assessment was finalized wherein substantial addition on account of disallowance u/s 43B and addition on account of sale of scrap was made. On the said disallowance and addition, the penalty proceeding was initiated. No appeal was filed by assessee against the addition of sale on scrap. The substantial amount of the disallowance u/s 43B was sustained