ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

37. The second issue is with respect to the difference of stock submitted to the banker and book stock. The learned assessing officer has noted that there was a difference of stock shown in the books of account in the statement shown to the banks and that the difference to the total income of the assessee

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

37. The second issue is with respect to the difference of stock submitted to the banker and book stock. The learned assessing officer has noted that there was a difference of stock shown in the books of account in the statement shown to the banks and that the difference to the total income of the assessee

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

37. The second issue is with respect to the difference of stock submitted to the banker and book stock. The learned assessing officer has noted that there was a difference of stock shown in the books of account in the statement shown to the banks and that the difference to the total income of the assessee

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

37. The second issue is with respect to the difference of stock submitted to the banker and book stock. The learned assessing officer has noted that there was a difference of stock shown in the books of account in the statement shown to the banks and that the difference to the total income of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

37. The second issue is with respect to the difference of stock submitted to the banker and book stock. The learned assessing officer has noted that there was a difference of stock shown in the books of account in the statement shown to the banks and that the difference to the total income of the assessee

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

37. The second issue is with respect to the difference of stock submitted to the banker and book stock. The learned assessing officer has noted that there was a difference of stock shown in the books of account in the statement shown to the banks and that the difference to the total income of the assessee

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

37. The second issue is with respect to the difference of stock submitted to the banker and book stock. The learned assessing officer has noted that there was a difference of stock shown in the books of account in the statement shown to the banks and that the difference to the total income of the assessee

ASST CIT 27(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MERIT MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 of the Act. At the outset, the AO has made addition under wrong section of the Act and is required to be deleted. This ground, even on the merits is discussed herein below. The impounded page no.85 of Annexure B-3 were carefully perused and It is observed that the said page reflects a chart of party-wise

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10 each at a premium of Rs 237.99 per equity share to all its existing equity shareholders in the ratio of 6 equity shares for every 29 equity shares held by them. For the purpose of issuance of right shares, a letter of offer was given to all the shareholders of the assessee. The assessee received a total amount

LIVA HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 904/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) The Assistant Commissioner Liva Healthcare Limited बनाम/ Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Shivsagar Estate, V. Room No. 522, 5 Th Floor, ‘A’ Block, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Dr. Annie Basant Road Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafw0040N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 30 to 36 of the Act of 1961 and are incurred wholly and exclusive for the purposes of business and it is not sufficient that it has some connection with the business of the assessee. No details of the seminars conducted abroad are brought on record as also spouses of the Doctors also travelled overseas along with Doctors

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. LIVA HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 904/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) The Assistant Commissioner Liva Healthcare Limited बनाम/ Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Shivsagar Estate, V. Room No. 522, 5 Th Floor, ‘A’ Block, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Dr. Annie Basant Road Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafw0040N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 30 to 36 of the Act of 1961 and are incurred wholly and exclusive for the purposes of business and it is not sufficient that it has some connection with the business of the assessee. No details of the seminars conducted abroad are brought on record as also spouses of the Doctors also travelled overseas along with Doctors

DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SYNTEL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit-3(2)(1), Syntel Private Limited, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Unit No. 112 Sdf Iv, Seepz Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri East Mumbai-400096. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 8305 D Appellant Respondent

68,16,833/- earned by the SEZ units of the earned by the SEZ units of the assessee company. It was contended by the assessee that said assessee company. It was contended by the assessee that said assessee company. It was contended by the assessee that said Syntel Pvt. Ltd. 3 interest income was earned from temporary parking

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

37,50,000/-received from said party remained unexplained transaction to be considered as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 8 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in directing the JAO not to enhance the addition under section 68 by an amount

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

37,50,000/-received from said party remained unexplained transaction to be considered as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 8 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in directing the JAO not to enhance the addition under section 68 by an amount

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference