DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

145A in respect of unutilized CENVAT credit is carried out, deduction for the same is available to the assessee under provisions of Section-43B, since the assessee had paid excise duty payable on closing stock of cement as on last day of the accounting year before filing return of income for Assessment Year-2010-11 by adjusting unutilized CENVAT credit

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

145A in respect of unutilized CENVAT credit is carried out, deduction for the same is available to the assessee under provisions of Section-43B, since the assessee had paid excise duty payable on closing stock of cement as on last day of the accounting year before filing return of income for Assessment Year-2010-11 by adjusting unutilized CENVAT credit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided\nas per the table below:\n\nSr

reassessment proceedings initiated were bad in law as the basis for reopening was incorrect and had been deleted by the CIT(A). The claim for foreseeable losses was allowed as a deduction based on accounting standards and prior judicial precedents. Contingency expenses were also allowed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "115JB", "37(1)", "28", "145", "145A

MS MILAN AGENCY,MUMBAI vs. ITO ASSESSEMENT UNIT, IT DEPT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Milan Agency Ito, Assessment Unit, It Deptt. Shop No. 6, Friends Shopping Vs. Centre, Azad Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. Pan: Aaefm 8738 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, Advocate & Om Kandalkar Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. Dr

145A(ii) filed with the memo of appeal in Form 35 and also as an attachment with the executive summary filed [as desired by CIT(A)] after the Video conferencing. 6. Confirming penalty proceeding for notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271B / dismissing the ground no. 3, i.e. “issuing penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271B” when it is evident from

ITD ITD CEM JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149", "115JB", "37(1)", "28", "145", "145A", "80IA", "133(6)" ], "issues": "Whether reassessment proceedings initiated after

ACIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WYETH LEDERLE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4070/Mum/2005 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2000-01) Acit-7(3) बिधम/ M/S. Wyeth Ltd. Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Level 6 & 7, Plating Plot Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. No. C-59, G- Block Bkc, Road, Mumbai-400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400098. Cross Objection No. 376/Mum/2005 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4070/Mum/2005 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) M/S. Wyeth Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-7(3) Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Level 6 & 7, Plating Plot Vs. No. C-59, G- Block Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400098. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Rajnandani Shukla Revenue By: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Mumbai Dated 22.03.2005 For The Ay. 2000-01. 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue & Only Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Co Are Dealt Together. The Ground Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Directing The Ao To Delete The Addition Of Rs.21,54,713/- (20% Of The Expenditure Of Rs.1,07,73,564/-).

145A of the Act, sales have to include sales tax and excise duty and since these have not been specifically excluded in explanation (ba) to section 80HHC(4B) of the Act, the total turnover has to include sales tax and Excise duty. Aggrieved the assessee, preferred on appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who took note of decision

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

145A of the Act provides for\ncomputation of income under the head 'profits and gains from business\nor profession' and 'income from other sources' by applying the \"Income\nComputation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS)'. Since no specific ICDS\nhas been notified for the year under consideration for real estate\ndevelopers, revenue and cost recognition is governed by the applicable\naccounting standards

ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI, MUMAI

145A of the Act provides for\ncomputation of income under the head 'profits and gains from business\nor profession' and 'income from other sources' by applying the \"Income\nComputation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS)'. Since no specific ICDS\nhas been notified for the year under consideration for real estate\ndevelopers, revenue and cost recognition is governed by the applicable\naccounting standards

ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided as per the table below:

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

145A of the Act provides for computation of income under the head 'profits and gains from business or profession' and 'income from other sources' by applying the "Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS)'. Since no specific ICDS has been notified for the year under consideration for real estate developers, revenue and cost recognition is governed by the applicable accounting standards

ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided as per the table below:

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

145A of the Act provides for computation of income under the head 'profits and gains from business or profession' and 'income from other sources' by applying the "Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS)'. Since no specific ICDS has been notified for the year under consideration for real estate developers, revenue and cost recognition is governed by the applicable accounting standards

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. ITD ITD CEM JOINT VENTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided as per the table below:

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

145A of the Act provides for computation of income under the head 'profits and gains from business or profession' and 'income from other sources' by applying the "Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS)'. Since no specific ICDS has been notified for the year under consideration for real estate developers, revenue and cost recognition is governed by the applicable accounting standards

M/S. BLUE SQUARE CORPORATE SERVICES PVT LTE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-12(1)(3), MUMBAI

145A, 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, ……………. Mumbai - 400020 Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Ms. Vinita Shah For the Respondent/Department : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date : 12.09.2023 Conclusion of hearing : 21.09.2023 Pronouncement of order O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: By way of the present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 11/05/2023, passed

BLUES IT INNOVATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO -12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

145A, Ist Floor, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(1) Blues IT Innovations India Private Room No. 129, Ist Floor, Vs Limited, Flat No. 24, J 24, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mahavir Nagar, Dahanukarwadi, Mumbai-400020 Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

BLUES IT INNOVATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

145A, Ist Floor, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(1) Blues IT Innovations India Private Room No. 129, Ist Floor, Vs Limited, Flat No. 24, J 24, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mahavir Nagar, Dahanukarwadi, Mumbai-400020 Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

BLUES IT INNOVATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

145A, Ist Floor, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(1) Blues IT Innovations India Private Room No. 129, Ist Floor, Vs Limited, Flat No. 24, J 24, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mahavir Nagar, Dahanukarwadi, Mumbai-400020 Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BLUES IT INNOVATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

145A, Ist Floor, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(1) Blues IT Innovations India Private Room No. 129, Ist Floor, Vs Limited, Flat No. 24, J 24, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mahavir Nagar, Dahanukarwadi, Mumbai-400020 Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

BLUES IT INNOVATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

145A, Ist Floor, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(1) Blues IT Innovations India Private Room No. 129, Ist Floor, Vs Limited, Flat No. 24, J 24, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mahavir Nagar, Dahanukarwadi, Mumbai-400020 Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 [PAN: AACCB4562D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question