SHETH CREATORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

properties, the transactions in respect of which could not the transactions in respect of which could not be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was submitted that same was maintained by the pilot

SHETH CREATORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

properties, the transactions in respect of which could not the transactions in respect of which could not be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was submitted that same was maintained by the pilot

SHETH CREATORS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

properties, the transactions in respect of which could not the transactions in respect of which could not be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was submitted that same was maintained by the pilot

SHETH CREATORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENT. CIR-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

properties, the transactions in respect of which could not the transactions in respect of which could not be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was be closed. Regarding name of passengers in the logbook, it was submitted that same was maintained by the pilot

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

house property\nexcluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of\nbusiness or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has\nfailed to point out corresponding provision providing for\ncomputation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding\nthe WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year.\n7. 8. We note that Section

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

36(1)(VA) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act before pronouncement of the checkmate Judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall amount to misreporting of the income by the assessee/appellant with a consequence of imposing of 200% penalty u/s 270A of the Act? 4. We have heard Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld.DR on behalf

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

36(1)(VA) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act before pronouncement of the checkmate Judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall amount to misreporting of the income by the assessee/appellant with a consequence of imposing of 200% penalty u/s 270A of the Act? 4. We have heard Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld.DR on behalf

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 36(1)(1)(va) of the Act is prospective in nature and the various courts have held that the respective payments made before filing the return of income is allowable expenditure u/s. 43B of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 55. In the result, appeal

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 36(1)(1)(va) of the Act is prospective in nature and the various courts have held that the respective payments made before filing the return of income is allowable expenditure u/s. 43B of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 55. In the result, appeal

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 36(1)(1)(va) of the Act is prospective in nature and the various courts have held that the respective payments made before filing the return of income is allowable expenditure u/s. 43B of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 55. In the result, appeal

JCIT (OSD)CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTIRES LTD, MUMBAI

36(1)(v) is not subject to any condition.\n39. According of approval for recognized provident fund and\ngratuity fund are provided under Part-A and Part-B of the 4th Schedule\nto the Income Tax Act. While Rule-4 under Part-A to the 4th Schedule\nprescribes the condition for approval of recognized provident fund, Rule

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property" and to direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s.24(a). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction of Rs.24285714/- claimed u/s.35A in respect of the acquisition of the trade mark by M/s.Sarabhai Piramal