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

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 2.7. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after insertion of Explanation

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

b which has been bifurcated by him as amount een bifurcated by him as amount received in financial year 2010 received in financial year 2010-11 i.e. corresponding to assessment 11 i.e. corresponding to assessment year 2011-12 and amount receiving in financial year 2011 12 and amount receiving in financial year 2011 12 and amount receiving in financial year

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

68 on account of alleged long term capital gain on sale of scripts of M/s. Excel Castronics Ltd 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about the opportunity for cross examination with the person whose statement was recorded against her is not given. 3. On the facts

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

249 (Bombay HC); Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v/s. DCIT [2018] 257 Taxman 442 (Bombay HC); and PCIT v/s. Andrew Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 144 of 2017](Bombay HC at Goa] 8. In sum and substance, the assessee has submitted as under:- a) The Appellant is not an 'eligible assessee' in terms of section 144C(15)(b

SUSHMA HARESH UBALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

249(4) of the Act and wrongly interpreting the provisions of the said section read with S.234B and 208 of the act. c) The learned CIT(A) ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to give response to the applicability of the provisions of S.294(b) of the act. The natural justice requires that the proper opportunity

SHAJU RAMAN ARANGATH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

249(4)(b) on the part of the Appellant whereas the said provisions were not applicable to the Appellant for the relevant Assessment Year. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant inlimine Shaju Raman Arangath by not providing the Appellant

M/S. LIFELINE MEDICARE HOSPITALS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

249,999,000/– but failed to provide the genuineness and creditworthiness. The analysis of the returns of income of the investor or reveals that the investment is not in consonance with the income of the directors/shareholder. Therefore, the said amount was added to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the income

ITO 12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEXT AVENUE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED(EARLIER KNOWN AS KBJ VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

249,999,000/– but failed to provide the genuineness and creditworthiness. The analysis of the returns of income of the investor or reveals that the investment is not in consonance with the income of the directors/shareholder. Therefore, the said amount was added to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the income

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section