STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter ”the Act”), dated 31.10.2019 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 673,72,86,723/-/. 2. The assessee is aggrived with the obove order and has preferred order before us, raising following 10 grounds; ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. I Transfer Pricing

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this

ASST CIT (OSD) 8(3), MUMBAI vs. TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed and assessee appeal is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7045/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Time Technoplast Ltd. बिधम/ Acit, Range-8(3) 102, Todi Complex, 35 Saki Vs. Mumbai Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7008/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit, Range-8(3) बिधम/ M/S. Time Technoplast Ltd. 102, Todi Complex, 35 Saki Vs. Mumbai Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact2783J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02. 01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 24.09.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. Ita. Nos 7045/M/2014 7008/M/2014 A.Y. 2010-11

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. 5. The assessee has shown opening balance of investment to the tune of Rs.1,29,56,22,141/- and closing balance of investment to the tune of Rs.1,49,39,20,326/-. Therefore, the provision of u/s

SHRI HARBANS SINGH BAWA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 17(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiharbans Singh Bawa Vs. Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, 410, Jolly Bhavan No.1 10, New Marine Lines Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent) & Harbans Singh Bawa Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 112, Free Press House Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 are initiated for concealment of income and/or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its submissions made before the Ld. AO and argued that unabsorbed depreciation, if any under

SHRI HARBANS SINGH BAWA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY CIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiharbans Singh Bawa Vs. Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, 410, Jolly Bhavan No.1 10, New Marine Lines Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent) & Harbans Singh Bawa Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 112, Free Press House Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 are initiated for concealment of income and/or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its submissions made before the Ld. AO and argued that unabsorbed depreciation, if any under

THE DY CIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA PROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed whereas Cross Objection No

Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1) of the IT Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. Further the assessee company without prejudice argued that the company has not claimed service tax/work contract tax in the P&L account and therefore these are not claimed as expenses and accordingly the provisions of section

BSI SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

43D. The interpretation that after amendment, bad debt is allowable as and when assessee writes off the debt in the books of account is not acceptable as any assessee who had substantial income as on year end can write off debt from available sundry debtors to the extent of profit and claim deduction of bad debt, thus offering nil income

DCIT 1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

43D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from disclosure of interest income on accrual basis as such benefit is available only to those entities which are covered by the said section?” 4. As a perusal of the aforestated Grounds of appeal reveal, the solitary issue raised by the Revenue arises from the action of CIT(A) in allowing the claim

MUMBAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

43D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from disclosure of interest income on accrual basis as such benefit is available only to those entities which are covered by the said section?” 4. As a perusal of the aforestated Grounds of appeal reveal, the solitary issue raised by the Revenue arises from the action of CIT(A) in allowing the claim

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

271 of 2014 vide order dated 23/08/2016 upheld the aforesaid findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. Similar issue has already been decided in assessee's own case on identical facts for preceding assessment year, therefore, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken, in the absence of any allegation of change in facts

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

271 of 2014 vide order dated 23/08/2016 upheld the aforesaid findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. Similar issue has already been decided in assessee's own case on identical facts for preceding assessment year, therefore, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken, in the absence of any allegation of change in facts