DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT IT-3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

reassessment proceedings were initiated, inter alia, in view of the information/material gathered during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and assessment order dated 31.03.2005 was passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 1.2. Appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were partly allowed

ADIT (IT)-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

reassessment proceedings were initiated, inter alia, in view of the information/material gathered during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and assessment order dated 31.03.2005 was passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 1.2. Appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were partly allowed

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (INT. TAXATION) - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

reassessment proceedings were initiated, inter alia, in view of the information/material gathered during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and assessment order dated 31.03.2005 was passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 1.2. Appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were partly allowed

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

vi). Hence no addition can be made on issues which are debatable or require further verification of evidences. Ground 6: Without prejudice to Ground 4, the learned PCIT erred in law in setting aside the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act by giving directions to the teamed AD for making an enquiry with respect to claim made

DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN MADHAVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

reassessment notice under section\n148 of the Act on a substantive basis for the assessment year 2009-10, while\nin the year under consideration the said notice was issued on protective basis.\n9.\nThe findings of the AO vide assessment order dated 28/12/2017 passed\nunder section 147 r.w. section 143(3) of the Act, for the assessment year\n2009

TELEFONICA UK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TAX), RANGE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

9(1)(vi) of the Act and also as per India-UK DTAA under Article 13(3). At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands covered in the case of M/s. Telefonica Depreciation Espana SA vs. CIT in ITA No.2657/BANG/2019, 180/BANG/2022& 817/BANG/2022 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2012-13. 3. The brief facts

TELEFONICA UK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TAX), RANGE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

9(1)(vi) of the Act and also as per India-UK DTAA under Article 13(3). At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands covered in the case of M/s. Telefonica Depreciation Espana SA vs. CIT in ITA No.2657/BANG/2019, 180/BANG/2022& 817/BANG/2022 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2012-13. 3. The brief facts

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

9. Your Appellant prays that the disallowance made in the impugned order is invalid and bad in law an order is invalid and bad in law and facts and hence the same may d facts and hence the same may please be deleted. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that during the relevant Briefly stated, facts

AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,USA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX), CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of India-US DTAA. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 5,25,13,416 and INR 5,98,83,720 under section 234A and 2348 of the Act respectively. 11. That

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagmohan Mahajan v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 579 (Punj. & Har.), held that a search authorized in the absence of material necessary to form the requisite belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagmohan Mahajan v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 579 (Punj. & Har.), held that a search authorized in the absence of material necessary to form the requisite belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagmohan Mahajan v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 579 (Punj. & Har.), held that a search authorized in the absence of material necessary to form the requisite belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagmohan Mahajan v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 579 (Punj. & Har.), held that a search authorized in the absence of material necessary to form the requisite belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was illegal and no order under section

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held