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

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

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

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

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

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

b) of\nthe Act is not applicable and under section 40A(7)(a) of the Act no deduction is\nallowable in respect of any provision made by the assessee for payment of\ngratuity. Further, under section 43B of the Act, the sum payable by the\nassessee as an employer by way of contribution to gratuity fund is allowable

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

b) of\nthe Act is not applicable and under section 40A(7)(a) of the Act no deduction is\nallowable in respect of any provision made by the assessee for payment of\ngratuity. Further, under section 43B of the Act, the sum payable by the\nassessee as an employer by way of contribution to gratuity fund is allowable

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

b) of\nthe Act is not applicable and under section 40A(7)(a) of the Act no deduction is\nallowable in respect of any provision made by the assessee for payment of\ngratuity. Further, under section 43B of the Act, the sum payable by the\nassessee as an employer by way of contribution to gratuity fund is allowable

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

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

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

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. 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

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