GLOBAL PROSERV LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) made certain additions/disallowances as under : I Addition u/s 68 1,53,55,000 Ii Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) 10,15,007 iii Disallwnce u/s 40A(2)(b) 25,45,459 iv Disllwance of deprecition 37,850 V Disllwnce u/s 40(a)(ia) 7,77,886 vi Disalwnce of travelling expenses 62,89,119 vii Disallwne

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

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

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and needs to be deleted.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that vide order, dated 24/02/2024, penalty of INR.54,51,888/-was levied on the Assessee under Section 271

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c))\nACIT, CC-38, Room no.\nVs.\nM/s. United Phosphorous Ltd.\n32(1), Ayakar Bhavan,\nUniphos House, Madhu Park,\nMaharishi Karve Rd.,\n11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai.\nMumbai-400020.\nPAN: AAACU 3440 P\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nMs. Vasanti Patel Advocate\nRevenue by\nShri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n18/03/2025\nDate

DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. XYLON ELECTROTECHNIC PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-3(3)(2) M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Room No. 609, 6Th Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, Aayakar A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 285/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Dcit-3(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Vs. A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent

36(1)(va) in respect of delay in payment of employees’ P.F. contribution c) Addition on account of alleged Rs.20,06,198/- cessation of Liability u/s 41(1) d) Disallowance of Certification Rs.1,48,114/- expenses e) Disallowance of foreign travel Rs.22,71,200/- expenditure M/s Xylon Electrotechnic 3 ITA No. 1582/Mum/2016 & CO No. 285/Mum/2017 We are concerned in this

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).

penalty to the date on which the refund is granted. (3) Where, as a result of an order under sub-section (3) of section 115WE or section 115WF or section 115WG or sub- section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The penalty was levied by DCIT Circle 2(1), Mumbai under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 28-02-2011. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that in these appeals the registry has raised an objection that there is a short payment

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The penalty was levied by DCIT Circle 2(1), Mumbai under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 28-02-2011. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that in these appeals the registry has raised an objection that there is a short payment

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The penalty was levied by DCIT Circle 2(1), Mumbai under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 28-02-2011. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that in these appeals the registry has raised an objection that there is a short payment

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The penalty was levied by DCIT Circle 2(1), Mumbai under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 28-02-2011. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that in these appeals the registry has raised an objection that there is a short payment

DCIT - 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6425/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6426/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 1140/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Maharashtra Tourism Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), Development Corporation Room No. 535, 5 Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. फनाभ/ Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 C.D.O. Hutments, Opp. Lic 020 Bldg, Mada Cama Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacm0712G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Mamta Bansal, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Anil Sathe, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-365 & 366/15-16, Cit(A)- 2/It/10479/2016-17 Vide Dated 07.08.2017, 17.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 01.03.2013, 27.03.2015, 28.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

u/s 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping in mind the fact that the same has been clarified to be applicable only with prospective effect from 1-4-2021, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue's case is supported by the following case

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

Va’ to ‘Vn’ having returned income or loss of upto Rs.30 lakh under jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 to 5 and 16 and in case of return income exceeding Rs.30 lakh, the jurisdiction lied with ACIT/DCIT 8(3)(2). The Ld. DR submitted that in view of the no regular return of income filed by the assessee

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

Va’ to ‘Vn’ having returned income or loss of upto Rs.30 lakh under jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 to 5 and 16 and in case of return income exceeding Rs.30 lakh, the jurisdiction lied with ACIT/DCIT 8(3)(2). The Ld. DR submitted that in view of the no regular return of income filed by the assessee

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

va for future years or terminal value was disclosed by the valuer, lue was disclosed by the valuer, secondly, no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital expenditure in future cash flow has been given, thirdly thirdly, discount expenditure in future cash flow