ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections [***] [except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. C.O. No.112/Mum/2017 CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

PRAKASH FATANDAS JASSUJA,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(2), THANE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment