AYM SYNTEX LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

119(2)(b) of the Act. Ground no. 2 is accordingly dismissed. accordingly dismissed.” 14.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the assessee on merit observing as under: on merit observing as under

AYM SYNTEX LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

119(2)(b) of the Act. Ground no. 2 is accordingly dismissed. accordingly dismissed.” 14.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the assessee on merit observing as under: on merit observing as under

ACIT- CC -3, MUMBAI vs. AYM SYNTEX LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

119(2)(b) of the Act. Ground no. 2 is accordingly dismissed. accordingly dismissed.” 14.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the assessee on merit observing as under: on merit observing as under

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,39,506/- for non-filing of Form No. 10 with Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax within stipulated time in the absence of any specific time limit under the section 11(2) as it existed at the relevant time. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,39,506/- for non-filing of Form No. 10 with Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax within stipulated time in the absence of any specific time limit under the section 11(2) as it existed at the relevant time. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,39,506/- for non-filing of Form No. 10 with Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax within stipulated time in the absence of any specific time limit under the section 11(2) as it existed at the relevant time. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,39,506/- for non-filing of Form No. 10 with Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax within stipulated time in the absence of any specific time limit under the section 11(2) as it existed at the relevant time. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

119 and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income — Accrual of — Assessment year 1981-82 — Whether in view of CBDT circular, dated 9-10-1984, interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by assessee- bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought

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

ACIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

119 taxmann.com 472. the com 472. the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the CIT(A) Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the CIT(A) Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the CIT(A) has jurisdiction to deal with an additional ground which has jurisdiction to deal with an additional ground which has jurisdiction

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2 to 8). Copy of the order is placed on record. 68. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the submissions of the Ld.AR. 69. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03. While deciding the issue

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2 to 8). Copy of the order is placed on record. 68. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the submissions of the Ld.AR. 69. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03. While deciding the issue

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,16,036/-. It was contended by the learned AR that this issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT VS. GR Shipping Ltd., ITA No.598/2009 in favour of the assessee and relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal has decided the issue in assessee