VISEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING )-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The TPO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271G of the Act before passing the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act for the reason that the assessee has not responded to the show cause notices issued by the TPO. Accordingly the TPO vide order dated 30.09.2019 levied a penalty

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

disallowing the claim for deduction for expenditures in respect of excise duty of Rs. 43,00,000 without application of mind by carrying out the directions of the CIT vide his order dt. 06.02.2013 passed u/s. 263 of the Act. b. Your appellant submits that during the year the company has accounted for excise duty amounting

JANKALYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MAR SHAHAPUR,SHAHAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

disallowances:\nBad debts: Rs. 6,00,000/-\nDisallowance of provisions: Rs. 25,23,174/-\nDeduction under section 80P(2)(c):Rs. 35,205/-\n5. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed\nat Rs. 46,82,599/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty\nproceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Aptivaa

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Aptivaa

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Aptivaa

VIJAYKUMAR RAMRATAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPEAL INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

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

disallowed by your good self's office. 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1 mentioned above, it is hereby submitted that the purchase of flat in society named "Sukur Garden" is by way of co-ownership and the appellant is having only 50% share in the said property, which has not been considered by AO before passing the final order

M/S MUMBADEVI VEYHICLES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Mumbadevi Ito Ward 41(4)(2), Veyhicles Room No. 854B, 8Th Shop No. 18, Suyash Vs. Floor, Kautilya Shopping Centre, Nnp, A. Bhavan, Bkc, K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Bandra (East), (E), Mumbai-400 065 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaofm0851F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026

271F were also initiated for failure to file return under section 139. 6. Thereafter, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied vide order dated 29.09.2022, wherein the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,51,564/- holding that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income by not filing the return under section 139 and by offering income

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has failed to get his accounts audited u/s 44AB in respect of previous year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 and fails to furnish a report of such audit as required u/s 44AB. Considering all the above cited facts, it is established that

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has failed to get his accounts audited u/s 44AB in respect of previous year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 and fails to furnish a report of such audit as required u/s 44AB. Considering all the above cited facts, it is established that

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has failed to get his accounts audited u/s 44AB in respect of previous year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 and fails to furnish a report of such audit as required u/s 44AB. Considering all the above cited facts, it is established that

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has failed to get his accounts audited u/s 44AB in respect of previous year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 and fails to furnish a report of such audit as required u/s 44AB. Considering all the above cited facts, it is established that

MILLENNIUM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmillennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-3, Ground Floor, Ceejay House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcm6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

disallow the deduction w/s:80G of the Act-in respect of donation claimed out of CSR expenditure after due verification and giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. We have also examined the order of AO wherein he has allowed the benefit of section 80G of the Act to the assessee and has accepted the return of income

GOLDEN SQUARE CHS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22 (1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assesee are allowed

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 572 & 573/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Golden Square Chsltd., Vs. Ito – 22(1)(5),Roomno. Cst Road, Sunder Nagar 323,3Rdfloor,Piramal Kalina, Santicruz (E) Chamber,Lalbaug, Mumbai. 400098 Parel, Mumbai.400012 Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag2527M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kunal Lunawat & Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Chandekar.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

disallowed deduction u/s 80 2(d) by invoking provisions of section 80 P(4) of IT Act. Against order u/s 143(3 appellant is in appeal. Relevant extract of assessment order is reproduced as under "Addition on account of interest received On verification of the details filed during course of scrutiny proceedings, it is seen that during the year under

CHANDRIKA TAPURIAH, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

271F for non-filing of returns u/s. 153A on record, as in the case of the assessee’s husband, Kashinath Tapuriah (KT), the same stands levied, for all the relevant years, vide order/s dated 05/3/2008, which appears to have not been contested, attaining finality. In fact, admittedly no return was filed for A.Y. 2004-05 (APB 10, page 1823), while

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.OPEL PAPER MILLS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances, he supported order of the LD AO and stated that assessee has not given any details to the assessing officer. Therefore, no fault can be found with that order. ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 e. On the issue of two additions paid by the learned assessing officer u/s 68 of the income

M/S.OPEL PAPER MILLS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances, he supported order of the LD AO and stated that assessee has not given any details to the assessing officer. Therefore, no fault can be found with that order. ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 e. On the issue of two additions paid by the learned assessing officer u/s 68 of the income

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

271F of the Act (for A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2006-07), since confirmed by the Tribunal (in ITA Nos. 2919- 2929/Mum/2009 dated 16.4.2010/APB-9, pgs. 1771-1773), and which order stands admittedly accepted by the assessee. For A.Y. 2007-08, admittedly no original return u/s. 139 was filed (APB 10, pg. 1781). The question of the assessee requesting