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

2,37,52,201 is bad in law and ought to be\ndeleted.\n9. Enhancement of income by the CIT(A) of Rs 1,17,890\n9.1. The CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment by making disallowance of\nRs 1,17,890, being miscellaneous expenses debited to profit and loss account\nfor contravention of provisions of section 40A

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

2,37,52,201 is bad in law and ought to be\ndeleted.\n9. Enhancement of income by the CIT(A) of Rs 1,17,890\n9.1. The CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment by making disallowance of\nRs 1,17,890, being miscellaneous expenses debited to profit and loss account\nfor contravention of provisions of section 40A

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

40A(2)(b) of the Act. 15. We also find merit in the alternative arguments of the assessee’s counsel that preference share application money is M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. not in the nature of loans and advances. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the various High Courts

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

40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 87,61,130 representing part of the payment made for encashment of leave. He ought not to have

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

40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 87,61,130 representing part of the payment made for encashment of leave. He ought not to have

AMBICO EXPORTS AND IMPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 6822/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2013-14) It(Tp)A No.6822/Mum/2017(A.Y.2013-14)

40A(2)(b) of the ACT to Your Assessee. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on the basis of facts to make a reference to the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) of the ACT for determining arms length price on transactions with Narayan Foods Limited and Ambico Exports and Imports Private Limited

TRIMODE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtrimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit - 10(3) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit - 15(3)(1) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Hitesh Trivedi (Ars) Respondent By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Cit(A)]-22, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2012 & Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai Dated 24.06.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) For Ita No. 3471/M/12 & 4977/M/16- Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd.

section 40A(2) of the Act to the payments independent parties. 2. (a) The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing depreciation claimed on motor car amounting to Rs.14,15,113/- on the ground that motor car has been used for the personal purpose

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

Section 69C. The Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case Rajmoti Industries(supra) have discussed in details about the distinction between account payee cheques and crossed cheques and have held that it is only account payee cheques issued by the tax-payer shall meet the compliance of Section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) under the amended

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

Section 69C. The Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case Rajmoti Industries(supra) have discussed in details about the distinction between account payee cheques and crossed cheques and have held that it is only account payee cheques issued by the tax-payer shall meet the compliance of Section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) under the amended

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

2)(iii), same plant and machinery must have been used during such year. The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of ACIT Vs. Rhishi Rook Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 102 ITR 121 has held that there should actual use of assets to be eligible for depreciation- not put to use because of strike or block out - no depreciation allowable. The decision

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

2)(iii), same plant and machinery must have been used during such year. The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of ACIT Vs. Rhishi Rook Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 102 ITR 121 has held that there should actual use of assets to be eligible for depreciation- not put to use because of strike or block out - no depreciation allowable. The decision

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), 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

2)(iii), same plant and machinery must have been used during such year. The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of ACIT Vs. Rhishi Rook Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 102 ITR 121 has held that there should actual use of assets to be eligible for depreciation- not put to use because of strike or block out - no depreciation allowable. The decision

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance of Rs 1,39,81,267 is bad in law and ought to be deleted. 8. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P 8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of deduction under section 80P claimed

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance of Rs 1,39,81,267 is bad in law and ought to be deleted. 8. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P 8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of deduction under section 80P claimed

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 40A(2)(b), on the ground that the appellants have paid job work charges to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for which there is no agreement. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITCA) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making