BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Properties v. Director of Income-tax [1996] 57 lTD 328 (Bombay,) wherein the Tribunal upheld the argument of the assessee that when an order is passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of a superior authority, the same could not be the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. 1.6. The appellant submits that

DADIBA KALI PUNDOLE ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEM TAX -17(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

246A. (1) Any assessee or any deductor or any collector aggrieved by any of the following orders (whether made before or after the appointed day) may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against— (a) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 115VP or an order against the assessee where the assessee denies

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

properties is generally provided through in room television set and the advertisement / article in the Taj magazine / Coffee Table magazine kept in the rooms of overseas hotel units. - It is further submitted that in competitive industry like hospitality, apart from retaining existing customers, it is must to reach out the customers to widen its customer base in best possible manner

ALOK JOSHI,UTTRAKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

property with address at\n“23/A, Ravindra Nath Tagore Marg, Hathi Barkala, Dehradun” with its\nstatus as vacant. Assessee thus, claims that address at Dehradun was\nreported in the return filed by the assessee and no notices were sent\non this self owned house of the assessee, details of which were\navailable in the return. Notices were sent

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Properties:\nTemperature: 170°C\nPressure: 8 kg/cm²\nLatent Heat: 489 Kcal/kg\nTotal Heat: 662 Kcal/kg\n\nMy replies to your queries are given below:\n\nQuery A: Taking into account the variations in steam pressure between the two\naforementioned examples, is the quality of steam from the utility\nperspective as described above almost similar or significantly different?\n\nICT MUMBAI

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

246A of the act against the impugned order but by the direction of the Honourable High Court. Therefore appeal was filed by the assessee before the learned CIT – A – 47, Mumbai on 30 August 2019 challenging the impugned order. Reasons in Appellate Order Passed by the LD CIT (A) 21. The learned CIT – A perused written submissions made

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

246A of the act against the impugned order but by the direction of the Honourable High Court. Therefore appeal was filed by the assessee before the learned CIT – A – 47, Mumbai on 30 August 2019 challenging the impugned order. Reasons in Appellate Order Passed by the LD CIT (A) 21. The learned CIT – A perused written submissions made

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

House,\nIncome Tax Circle- 26(1)\n24 Homi Mody Street,\nKautilya Bhavan,\nFort, Mumbai- 400001.\nVs.\nBandra Kurla Complex,\nPAN: AAATT9835A\nBandra (East),\n(Appellant)\nMumbai- 400051.\n(Respondent)\nPresent for :\nAssessee by\nShri P. J. Pardiwala/ Shri. Sukhsagar Syal & Shri\nAtul Suraiya, A.R.\nRevenue by\nShri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) SR. D.R.\nDate of Hearing\n10.07.2024\nDate