ACIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DINESH HARICHAND SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

1) dated 12.02.2016 asked the assessee to prove the identi assessee to prove the identity and credit worthiness of the bogus ty and credit worthiness of the bogus unsecured loan lender Jand genuineness of the such transaction. unsecured loan lender Jand genuineness of the such transaction. unsecured loan lender Jand genuineness of the such transaction. In response to which

ACIT, CC-44, MUMBAI vs. SHILPA SUNIL MAJITHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

disallowance of the claim of LTCL, eligible for carry forward and set off, arose for the first time. Whether the same would finally stand to be set off, and for which year/s, lies in the womb of future, i.e., is uncertain. The determination of the income (which includes loss), including the aspect of its carry forward

ACIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HEALTHCARE INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax-8(3), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.217, 3A, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kherani Road, M.K. Marg, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 72 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax (Tds)-3(1), Pvt. Ltd., R.No.1012, 10Th Floor, 3B, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Kherani Road, Hospital Building, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Charni Road, Mumbai - 72 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is warranted in this case, when the assessee has not claimed any expenditure at all. 8. Now coming to the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2010-11 i.e. ITA No.2940/M/2014. ITA No.2940/M/2014 for A.Y 2010-11 4 ITA No.4403/M/2012 & ITA No.2940/M/2014 M/s. United Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. 9. The Revenue has agitated

ACIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HEALTHCARE INIDA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax-8(3), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.217, 3A, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kherani Road, M.K. Marg, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 72 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax (Tds)-3(1), Pvt. Ltd., R.No.1012, 10Th Floor, 3B, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Kherani Road, Hospital Building, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Charni Road, Mumbai - 72 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is warranted in this case, when the assessee has not claimed any expenditure at all. 8. Now coming to the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2010-11 i.e. ITA No.2940/M/2014. ITA No.2940/M/2014 for A.Y 2010-11 4 ITA No.4403/M/2012 & ITA No.2940/M/2014 M/s. United Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. 9. The Revenue has agitated

HINDUJA VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 302/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hinduja Ventures Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 8(2), बनाम/ 49/50, In Centre, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, 12Th Road, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach 2058 N (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. Cit, Circle 8(2), Hinduja Ventures Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 49/50, In Centre, Midc, 12Th Road, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 093 (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri Hari S. Raheja : Mrs. Neelma Nadkarni Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 08.09.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 29.11.2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S

section 14A (1+2+3) 1,58,54,278 3.2 The exclusion or otherwise of the investment in the subsidiary company/s in working the disallowance u/s. 14A r/w rule 8D would depend on whether the shares thereof are quoted or, as claimed, unquoted. This is as exemption of dividend on shares or long-term gain on their transfer is confined

DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI vs. AMIT CAPITAL & SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit, Cent Cir – 5(1) Vs. M/S. Amit Capital & R.No.1928, 19Th Floor Securities Pvt. Ltd., 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Air India Building, Nariman Point Hanuman Building Mumbai Perin, Nariman Point Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca4219Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned assessing officer erred in disallowing the amount Rs. 7,70,906/- (as calculated by Learned Assessing Officer Rs.50,47,985/- minus as calculated by Appellant Rs. 42,77,079/-) u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the year under consideration

AVINASH CHANDRA TIWARI,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O.11(2)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of the revenue are dismissed

1), Mumbai-20 Vs. Dr. Avinash Chandra Tiwari, A-8, Sunder Nagar, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAPT 7886 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Mr. Mehul Shah याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by Ms. Vinita J. Menon : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 21/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख

ITO 11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. AVINASH CHANDRA TIWARI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of the revenue are dismissed

1), Mumbai-20 Vs. Dr. Avinash Chandra Tiwari, A-8, Sunder Nagar, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAPT 7886 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Mr. Mehul Shah याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by Ms. Vinita J. Menon : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 21/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख

MADHUR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7125/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shree Madhur Realtors Pvt. बिधम/ Ito 8(3)-1 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Ltd. A-38, Nandjyot Vs. Industrial Estate Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6153/Mum/2014 & 35/M/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिधम/ Ito 8(3)-1 Aayakar Bhavan, M/S. Madhur Realtors Pvt. Ltd. A-38, Nandjyot Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Co. No.41/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 6153/Mum/2014) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shree Madhur Realtors P. बिधम/ Ito 8(3)-1 Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. A-38, Nandjyot Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Kurla Andheri Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics7097J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2018

268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which read as under *(•4) The Appellate Tribunal or Court, hearing such appeal or reference, shall have regard to the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1) and the circumstances under which such appeal or application for reference was filed or not filed in respect of any case

BLUE DART EXRESS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

1 is allowed. 8. It is not dispute that the Assessing Officer made the ad-hoc disallowance on account of expenses of fleet and hire charges and handling and cleaning charges on the basis of the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in the past year. The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. The business of the assessee

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

1 is allowed. 8. It is not dispute that the Assessing Officer made the ad-hoc disallowance on account of expenses of fleet and hire charges and handling and cleaning charges on the basis of the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in the past year. The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. The business of the assessee

BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

1 is allowed. 8. It is not dispute that the Assessing Officer made the ad-hoc disallowance on account of expenses of fleet and hire charges and handling and cleaning charges on the basis of the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in the past year. The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. The business of the assessee

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

1 is allowed. 8. It is not dispute that the Assessing Officer made the ad-hoc disallowance on account of expenses of fleet and hire charges and handling and cleaning charges on the basis of the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in the past year. The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. The business of the assessee

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PORTESCAP INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit-2(3)(1), Portescap India Pvt. Ltd., 522, Aayakar Bhawan, Unit No. 2, Sdf-1, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate Seeepz.Sez.Andheri(East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400096. Pan No. Aaack 4896 K Appellant Respondent

Disallowance of Portescap India Pvt. Ltd. 2 deduction claimed deduction claimed , us. 43B of the Act of Rs. 1,49.35,897/ , us. 43B of the Act of Rs. 1,49.35,897/-without appreciating the facts that the assessee is not eligible to claim the appreciating the facts that the assessee is not eligible to claim the appreciating the facts that

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

268A of the Act embodies a clear and deliberate policy decision to regulate departmental litigation and to ensure that appeals involving insignificant tax effect do not occupy the time of appellate fora. Such Circulars are binding on the Revenue authorities and, once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Tribunal is obliged to give effect to the same. 4. Once

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

268A of the Act embodies a clear and deliberate policy decision to regulate departmental litigation and to ensure that appeals involving insignificant tax effect do not occupy the time of appellate fora. Such Circulars are binding on the Revenue authorities and, once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Tribunal is obliged to give effect to the same. 4. Once

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

268A of the Act embodies a clear and deliberate policy decision to regulate departmental litigation and to ensure that appeals involving insignificant tax effect do not occupy the time of appellate fora. Such Circulars are binding on the Revenue authorities and, once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Tribunal is obliged to give effect to the same. 4. Once

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. MEDIIONS EXPORTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 268A(2)(a) w.e.f. 01.04.1999 which clarifies that if appeal is not filed by the revenue owing to low tax effect for any AY on any issue, it cannot be contended that income tax authority has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue. 4. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds