DCIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIDENT MARBLES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the R the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment evenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 994 & 995/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Trident Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan (Annexe), Airport Side Service Road, Vile M.K. Road, Churchgate, Parle (E), Mumbai-400099. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act were duly served on ct were duly served on the unsecured loan parties the unsecured loan parties, but still he had relied on the report of on the report of the investigation wing that those parties were not found by the gation wing that those parties were not found by the gation wing

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

11A, 5th Floor, Rockside Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Apartment, A Wing, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFJ1230A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Rahul Raman (DR) Assessee by: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 16/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/02/2021 आदेश

HARISONS STEEL LTD,WADA THANE vs. DCIT 12(2)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944" On perusal of the Annexure A has been perused and it is found that the amount of bogus CENVAT Credit availed by the assessee during the FY 2010-11 amounts to Rs.17,90,28,759/ On perusal of the above information received, it is found out that the amount of income chargeable

HARISONS STEEL LIMITED,WADA THANE vs. DY CIT 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944" On perusal of the Annexure A has been perused and it is found that the amount of bogus CENVAT Credit availed by the assessee during the FY 2010-11 amounts to Rs.17,90,28,759/ On perusal of the above information received, it is found out that the amount of income chargeable

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

11A) [***] (12) [***] [(13) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to searches and seizure shall apply, so far as may be, to searches and seizure under sub-section (1) or sub- section (1A).] (14) The Board may make rules in relation to any search or seizure under this section ; in particular

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VERVE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ito 5(3)(1), Verve Industries Pvt. Ltd., 526, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road, Plot No. 16, Office No. 1, Ground Vs. Mumbai-400020. Floor Aman Chamber 2, Mama Permanand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aahcv 1577 H Appellant Respondent

Sections 68 and 37 of the Act, the assessee had filed certain additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). However, it was contended additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). However, it was con additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). However, it was con that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adhere to the procedural safeguards that

GODREJ TYSON FOODS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6672/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

68,78,559/- (Rs.59,87,222/- for Assessment Year 2011-12 and Rs.3,08,91,337/- for Assessment Year 2012-13. However, the Appellant was entitled to set-off only Rs. 1,28,21,526/- under section 115JAA, being the difference of the tax liability 4 I.T.A. No. 6672/Mum/2019 computed as per regular provisions and as per Section

ILLIES ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

68,60,644/- and the AO issued show cause notice for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the assessee submitted as mentioned earlier in paragraphs. AO's observations are mentioned in earlier paragraph 4.2 and hence are not repeated here-. In nutshell, AO considered and examined assessee's reply in facts

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68,929, which was claimed as exempt under section 10 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to quantify the interest expenses attributable to such investments and explain why the same should not be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. In reply, assessee submitted that the main business of the assessee

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68,929, which was claimed as exempt under section 10 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to quantify the interest expenses attributable to such investments and explain why the same should not be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. In reply, assessee submitted that the main business of the assessee

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68,929, which was claimed as exempt under section 10 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to quantify the interest expenses attributable to such investments and explain why the same should not be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. In reply, assessee submitted that the main business of the assessee

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68,929, which was claimed as exempt under section 10 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to quantify the interest expenses attributable to such investments and explain why the same should not be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. In reply, assessee submitted that the main business of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SOHNI DEPAK TANNA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm C.O.No. 135/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Pankaj Jain Revenue By : Shri. Kishor Dhule Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

11A, 534, 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ACEPT3611J Assessee by : Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Pankaj Jain Revenue by : Shri. Kishor Dhule Date of hearing: 03.10.2023 Date of pronouncement : 30.10.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the income

BHAVYA CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

BHAVYA CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the assessee's appeals ITA No

11A) and (11B) (such business being\nhereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and\nsubject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of\nthe assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such\npercentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

11A) and (11B)] (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

11A) and (11B)] (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

11A. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the insurance claim has no element of export turnover and that consequently it must sustain a reduction of ninety per cent under Expln. (baa). Now it is necessary to note that Expln. (baa) in terms does not refer to export turnover. Sub- section (1) of section 80HHC contemplates