ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

4, 24,634/- , were sought to be disallowed under section 143(1). When the assessee was put to notice, by the Dy. Commissioner

M/S G.L.CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/NATIONAL FACE LESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S G.L. Construction Pvt. Ltd, Acit/National Faceless 304, Gokul Arcade B, Subhash Appeal Centre, Road, Near Garware, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 3438 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. N.R. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

4. On the legal issues and the contention of the appellant that of the appellant that such disallowance of late payment of SI/PF u/s.36(1)(va) is not such disallowance of late payment of SI/PF u/s.36(1)(va) is not such disallowance of late payment of SI/PF u/s.36(1)(va) is not permissible and that it ought to have been

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

4) of section 139 that would not dilute the infraction in not furnishing the return in due time as prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 139 otherwise the use of the expression 'in due time' would lose its relevant and it cannot be said that the said expression was used without any purpose. Ld. DR also relied upon

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section. Further what is required to be 6 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 disallowed

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section. Further what is required to be 6 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 disallowed

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section. Further what is required to be 6 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 disallowed

ACIT CEN CIR 21 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SUNTECK WEALTHMAX CAPITAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 36(1)((vii) read with section 36(2). 7 I . T . A . N o . 4

SATGURU CAPITAL & FINANCE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 36(1)((vii) read with section 36(2). 7 I . T . A . N o . 4

ACIT CC 21 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SATGURU CAPITAL AND FINANCE P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 36(1)((vii) read with section 36(2). 7 I . T . A . N o . 4

SUNTECH WEALTHMAX CAPITAL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 21, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 36(1)((vii) read with section 36(2). 7 I . T . A . N o . 4

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowed as the assessee did not deposit the balance unutilized net consideration received on sale of shares in capital gains account with bank or as specified by Central Government , as mandated by ITA 5420/Mum/2016 6 Dection 54F(1) of 1961 Act. It is submitted and claimed that as per section 54F of 1961 Act, the net sale proceeds

BRILLPHARMA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC,BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

4,24,634 ,were sought to be disallowed under section 143(1). When the assessee was put to notice, by the Dy Commissioner

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

4,67,941 and disallowance, if any, should be restricted to 20% of the said amount. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order upheld the disallowance on account of motor car expenses made vide intimation issued under section 143(1

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

disallowance of the deduction, it appears that the tion, it appears that the adjustment was made by invoking clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a), adjustment was made by invoking clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a), adjustment was made by invoking clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a), taking the view that the return was not filed within

M/S. SUPER TILES & MARBLES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4

SWAROOPSING BHADURSINGH RATHORE,THANE vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4

SWAROOPSINGH BHADURSINGH RATHORE,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4

M/S PAPER RECYCLE ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4