Search: disallowance

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year ssessee for assessment year

ITA 1676/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. C Naresh

Section 144B

disallowed while assessment. However, it was allowed However, it was allowed in the assessment and has resulted in excess in the assessment and has resulted in excess grant of deduction of Rs.88.10 crore (i.e 10% of Rs.881.10 crore) u/s grant of deduction of Rs.88.10 crore (i.e 10% of Rs.881.10 crore) u/s grant of deduction of Rs.88.10 crore

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2747/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

reopened the believe that income escaped assessment and reo believe that income escaped assessment and reo assessment under section 147 of the Act by way of issuing notice assessment under section 147 of the Act by way of issuing n assessment under section 147 of the Act by way of issuing n under section 148 of the A under section

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2748/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

reopened the believe that income escaped assessment and reo believe that income escaped assessment and reo assessment under section 147 of the Act by way of issuing notice assessment under section 147 of the Act by way of issuing n assessment under section 147 of the Act by way of issuing n under section 148 of the A under section

ACIT, CENT CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. M/S MANGAL & MANGAL, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopened. The assessee had also challenged various additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of expenses u/s. 40A(3) of the Act, disallowance

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. A.M.RATNAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1737/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1736 To 1738/Chny/2013 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2006-07) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. A.M. Ratnam Tax, 1, Velavan Street, Media Circle-Ii, West Kamakoti Nagar, Chennai-600 034. Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. Pan: Addpr 8973M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 21.10.2021

Section 147Section 151(1)

disallowance was not based on any material and the same has been estimated without any basis.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a film producer and assessment of all three concerned assessment years have been originally completed u/s.143(1) or 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment has been subsequently reopened

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. A.M.RATNAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1738/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1736 To 1738/Chny/2013 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2006-07) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. A.M. Ratnam Tax, 1, Velavan Street, Media Circle-Ii, West Kamakoti Nagar, Chennai-600 034. Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. Pan: Addpr 8973M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 21.10.2021

Section 147Section 151(1)

disallowance was not based on any material and the same has been estimated without any basis.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a film producer and assessment of all three concerned assessment years have been originally completed u/s.143(1) or 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment has been subsequently reopened

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. A.M.RATNAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1736/CHNY/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1736 To 1738/Chny/2013 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2006-07) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. A.M. Ratnam Tax, 1, Velavan Street, Media Circle-Ii, West Kamakoti Nagar, Chennai-600 034. Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. Pan: Addpr 8973M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 21.10.2021

Section 147Section 151(1)

disallowance was not based on any material and the same has been estimated without any basis.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a film producer and assessment of all three concerned assessment years have been originally completed u/s.143(1) or 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment has been subsequently reopened

SUNGROW IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-24(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000, the petitioner, objecting to the issuance of the notice, stated that the reasons furnished by the authority had quoted the provisions of section 10A as amended by the Finance Act, 2000, with effect from the assessment year 2001-02 and as such could not have been made applicable to the assessment

MAHESHWARI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4257/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Duby, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

reopening of the assessment at Page-15 of the Paper Book which reads as under : “M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

disallowance u/s 54EC and assessee is in appeal for reinstatement of the fair market value as on 1/4/1981 of the capital asset transferred and deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to Mumbai flat. Over and above, assessee has also challenged the reopening of the assessment

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

disallowance u/s 54EC and assessee is in appeal for reinstatement of the fair market value as on 1/4/1981 of the capital asset transferred and deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to Mumbai flat. Over and above, assessee has also challenged the reopening of the assessment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

disallowance u/s 54EC and assessee is in appeal for reinstatement of the fair market value as on 1/4/1981 of the capital asset transferred and deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to Mumbai flat. Over and above, assessee has also challenged the reopening of the assessment

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

reopening the assessment. The Sale Deed copy was available with the assessing officer and after applying his mind only he has passed the original order u/s. 143(3). There was no fresh material available with the assessing officer. Since the assessing officer has not applied the provisions of Section 50C while making the original order of assessment. Now the Assessing

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5657/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reopening the assessment in the present case is the disallowance of the appellant's claim during the assessment for A.Y. 2009 -10. 5.1.3 The notice

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5656/MUM/2014[2005-006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-006

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reopening the assessment in the present case is the disallowance of the appellant's claim during the assessment for A.Y. 2009 -10. 5.1.3 The notice

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5659/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reopening the assessment in the present case is the disallowance of the appellant's claim during the assessment for A.Y. 2009 -10. 5.1.3 The notice

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5658/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reopening the assessment in the present case is the disallowance of the appellant's claim during the assessment for A.Y. 2009 -10. 5.1.3 The notice

MADHU APARTMENT PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3870/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

reopening of the assessment at Page-15 of the Paper Book which reads as under : “M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through

MADHU APARTMENT PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3869/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

reopening of the assessment at Page-15 of the Paper Book which reads as under : “M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through

BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. N.M. Porwal

Section 234BSection 68

disallowances, the Ld. A.O. omitted to consider relevant factors, ed to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations and factors. influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations and factors. influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations