ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of\nthe Act.\n3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of\nincome for AY 2012-13 declaring income at Rs.1,69,14,565/-.\nAssessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing income

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of\nthe Act was finalized assessing income at Rs.2,60,33,300/-.\n3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed\nby the Assessing Officer that the assessee had credited an amount of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as Rental income in its P&L A/c. It treated the rent\ncharges

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

business or accounting. Further, there are other expenses which further lower the profit. It is not the intention on the part of the any prudent businessman tosell less product deliberately or anything like that so as to decrease its own profit. Also, in the instant case, the appellant is a Government of Maharashtra Company. So, the credibility of accounting cannot

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

business or accounting. Further, there are other expenses which further lower the profit. It is not the intention on the part of the any prudent businessman tosell less product deliberately or anything like that so as to decrease its own profit. Also, in the instant case, the appellant is a Government of Maharashtra Company. So, the credibility of accounting cannot

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

business or accounting. Further, there are other expenses which further lower the profit. It is not the intention on the part of the any prudent businessman tosell less product deliberately or anything like that so as to decrease its own profit. Also, in the instant case, the appellant is a Government of Maharashtra Company. So, the credibility of accounting cannot

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

business or accounting. Further, there are other expenses which further lower the profit. It is not the intention on the part of the any prudent businessman tosell less product deliberately or anything like that so as to decrease its own profit. Also, in the instant case, the appellant is a Government of Maharashtra Company. So, the credibility of accounting cannot

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

business income, reinforcing the position that they do not qualify for deductions reinforcing the position that they do not qualify for deductions reinforcing the position that they do not qualify for deductions under other provisions. under other provisions. In view of the ab In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

business. On that basis, he recorded ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. 3.1 Following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Following the directions

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

business. On that basis, he recorded ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. 3.1 Following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Following the directions

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

business. On that basis, he recorded ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. 3.1 Following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Following the directions

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

business. On that basis, he recorded ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. 3.1 Following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Following the directions

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

business receipts\nunless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts\nand circumstances of the case established by the\nAssessing Officer that in case of assessee addition\n69A on the unexplained income because of\nunaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made.\n11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO\nhas also referred a loose paper, page

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

business receipts\nunless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts\nand circumstances of the case established by the\nAssessing Officer that in case of assessee addition\n69A on the unexplained income because of\nunaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made.\n11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO\nhas also referred a loose paper, page