PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

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

B, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. L&T Business Park, Saki Vihar Road Mumbai- 400072 PAN : AAACH2736F Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri J.D. Mistri & Shri Sanjiv M. Appellant/Assessee by Shah, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) & Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 14.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: These appeals

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

B, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. L&T Business Park, Saki Vihar Road Mumbai- 400072 PAN : AAACH2736F Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri J.D. Mistri & Shri Sanjiv M. Appellant/Assessee by Shah, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) & Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 14.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: These appeals

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

B, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. L&T Business Park, Saki Vihar Road Mumbai- 400072 PAN : AAACH2736F Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri J.D. Mistri & Shri Sanjiv M. Appellant/Assessee by Shah, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) & Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 14.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: These appeals

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

B. Addition of preference share application money received amounting to Rs.90.00,00,OOP/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. 7. erred in not adjudicating the ground on taxability of preference share application money received as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act; 8. failed

ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. KARAN R. SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

40A(2)(b) only such excessive and unreasonable expenditure paid to specified person is disallowable. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) correctly confirmed the additions to 20% of alleged disallowance. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons

ACIT 4(2)(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. 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

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

ACIT 4(2)(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

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. DCIT 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

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. 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

ACIT 4(2)(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

ACIT 4(2)(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

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