ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. ANIL M. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

3. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 76,50,46,685/ - made u/s 68 of the Act by holding that that the addition made on a/c of the progressive peak balance relating to unexplained sundry creditors was not correct and convincing

GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

234A of the Act amounting to Rs 1,477,076 on the basis that Appellant has filed its return of income after the due date prescribed under the provisions of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

234A of the Act amounting to Rs 1,477,076 on the basis that Appellant has filed its return of income after the due date prescribed under the provisions of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

234A of the Act amounting to Rs 1,477,076 on the basis that Appellant has filed its return of income after the due date prescribed under the provisions of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

234A of the Act amounting to Rs 1,477,076 on the basis that Appellant has filed its return of income after the due date prescribed under the provisions of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. It was argued by ld. AR that with respect of the assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06, the AO has no jurisdiction to make addition u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3), insofar as no incriminating material was found during the limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) have already been expired. In respect of assessment

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. It was argued by ld. AR that with respect of the assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06, the AO has no jurisdiction to make addition u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3), insofar as no incriminating material was found during the limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) have already been expired. In respect of assessment

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. It was argued by ld. AR that with respect of the assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06, the AO has no jurisdiction to make addition u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3), insofar as no incriminating material was found during the limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) have already been expired. In respect of assessment

R.D.TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSTT.CIT 17(3)), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

234A of the Act. 3. Each ground is independent and without prejudice to the other.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a public charitable trust registered with the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and holding a valid registration under Section 12A of the Act during the relevant previous year

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

section 234A, 234B and 234C of IT. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 12. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 3. At the outset, it is noted that the delay 74 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the delay was owing to the Corona Virus pandemic. Hence

SANKPAL DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Sankpal Developers Income Tax Officer, 101-104, Haripriya Apartment, Ward-25(1)(1) Sundervan Complex, 203, Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Cross Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Andheri (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abwfs4025Q Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

68 of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. iv. The NFAC further failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. has made the addition relying on the statements of certain parties obtained during the search and seizure action carried out under section 132 of the Act on the said parties, without providing the appellant an opportunity

VANGUARD TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK INDEX FUNDQ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

234A of the Act amounting to INR 1,753,104 without appreciating that there was no delay in filing the return of income and payment of taxes by the Appellant. Ground of Appeal No. 7: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 12. The learned ACIT erred in initiating penalty under section 274 read with section

POOJA EQUIRESEARCH PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5941/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Pooja Equiresearch Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-8(2), B-101, Hari Darshan Bhogilal Mumbai Phadia Road, Kandivali (West) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacp 6499 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.Dr

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as applicable. Give credit for prepaid taxes after verification. The computation of tax payable is annexed as per separate sheet and forms the part of assessment order. Issue demand notice and challan and penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act accordingly. 3. The assessee being

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. (ASOL) AS A SUCCESSOR TO ACCENTURE SERIVCES PVT LTD (ASPL),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 14 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

234A and Section 234B of the Act. 24. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. Each of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to and independent of one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above grounds of appeal at or before the time

BAO VALUE FUND,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO had erred in assessing the sale value of equity shares of Kushal Ltd of ₹ 42,21,000 as unexplained cash credit as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Act under the head 'Income from other sources simply based on the information flagged

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 ITA. No. 4543/MUM/2023 (A.Y.: 2011-12) Jitendra udaylal Jain, Mumbai. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the exemption of Rs. 3,72,49,578/- under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3

DODHIA SYNTHETICS LIMITED,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

section 68, by submitting all the relevant\ndocumentary evidences to prove identity and\ncreditworthiness of the share applicant companies and\ngenuineness of the transactions.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's\ncase and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals) erred in upholding the addition u/s 68 of share\napplication money

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

3: Without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, on t Without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, on the facts and in the he facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred circumstances of the case