BHINMAL CONTRACTORS PROPERTY & LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

disallowed the claim by stating that the assessee is not a developer but a contractor. For doing M/s. Bhinmal Contractors Property & Land Developers P. Ltd so he has stated the reasons and also relied on a citation of Chennai ITAT decision in the case of the ACIT vs M/s. Indwel Lianings (P) Ltd. 7. On perusal of the aforesaid decision

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

8O was not applicable, the Assessing Officer has to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A. For that purpose, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The Assessing Officer must adopt a reasonable basis

FOOD PHARMA INDIA P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1804/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

8O,OOO], the A.O. mad disallowance @ 25% thereof, amounting to Rs.8,466/-. Thus, the A.O. made the disallowance totaling Rs.B8,466/- on this count. 8 M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4.1.4 Professional expenses- The A.O. observed that out of the expenditure of Rs.1,77,850/-, the appellant has incurred the sum of Rs.30,OOO/- only by cheque

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance. However, at the same time he directed the AO to withdraw the depreciation allowed. Aggrieved by this 31 ITA. No. 2308&2188/Mum/2012 &C.O.76/Mum/2013(A.Y.: 2003-04) Novartis India Limited, Mumbai revenue is before us. The ld.DR strongly supported the findings of the AO, Counsel for the assess strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

KAMLA BROTEHRS,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.108/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Kamala Brothers, Income Tax Officer-24(2)(1), C-13, R.No.606, 6Th Fl., Kuber Chambers, Cts 141-A, Vs. Next To Cod, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Dutt Mandir Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400097.. Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

disallowed for non fulfilling the basic conditions which was replied by the assessee vide letter dared 13.10.2011 which is incorporated in the para 4.2 of the assessment order. The assessee submitted before the AO that the project was approved and commenced on or before 31.3.2007 as the commencement certificate bearing No.CHE/7008/BP(WS)AP dated 15.3.2002 granted by BMC and the size

ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KAMALA BROTHERS, MUMBAI

Appeals is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.108/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Kamala Brothers, Income Tax Officer-24(2)(1), C-13, R.No.606, 6Th Fl., Kuber Chambers, Cts 141-A, Vs. Next To Cod, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Dutt Mandir Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400097.. Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

disallowed for non fulfilling the basic conditions which was replied by the assessee vide letter dared 13.10.2011 which is incorporated in the para 4.2 of the assessment order. The assessee submitted before the AO that the project was approved and commenced on or before 31.3.2007 as the commencement certificate bearing No.CHE/7008/BP(WS)AP dated 15.3.2002 granted by BMC and the size

ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KAMALA BROTHERS, MUMBAI

Appeals is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.108/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Kamala Brothers, Income Tax Officer-24(2)(1), C-13, R.No.606, 6Th Fl., Kuber Chambers, Cts 141-A, Vs. Next To Cod, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Dutt Mandir Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400097.. Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

disallowed for non fulfilling the basic conditions which was replied by the assessee vide letter dared 13.10.2011 which is incorporated in the para 4.2 of the assessment order. The assessee submitted before the AO that the project was approved and commenced on or before 31.3.2007 as the commencement certificate bearing No.CHE/7008/BP(WS)AP dated 15.3.2002 granted by BMC and the size

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowing the claim of depreciation and the same cannot be considered as an authentic document. Also nowhere on the document name of Suzlon Energy Limited appears which again raises a doubt as to the validity of the document. The person who has signed the Survey Report has not been identified and that he is a representative of Suzlon Energy Limited

MADHU B KHATRI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s claim of deduction is allowed

Bench: Confirming The Sale Consideration Determined By Ld. Ao On Adopting The Market Value Of 2 Residential Flats, Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

8O Taxmann.com 21 (Mad-HC) "The 15 flats, even if they are located in different blocks would not disentitle the assessee from getting the benefit of section 541-. The order of Tribunal which has been called in question is correct, there is no infirmity in the said order it does not call for any interference and the said order deserves

ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, M/S United Liner Agencies Of Cc-6(4), R. No.32(1), India P. Ltd. बनाम/ Ground Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Office Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road No.801, C-Wing, Behind Mumbai-400020 Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacu5182C Shri Narendra Kumar Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Y. P. Trivedi & Usha Dalal

disallowance of deduction. Thus it was pleaded by Ld. A.R that the claim of deduction has wrongly been denied and it should be allowed to the assessee. 24. The arguments of Ld. DR in reply to the Ld. AR’s arguments as well as arguments with regard to the appeals filed by the revenue are as under

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question