Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The appeal preferred by the Revenue for the assessment year 2005-06 is against the impugned order dated 19th May 2009, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXI, Mumbai, the cross appeals for the assessment year 2006-07 are against the impugned order dated 25th August 2009, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XIII and XIV, Mumbai, cross appeals for the assessment year 2007-08 are against the impugned order 8th February 2011, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Mumbai. The assessee also preferred cross objection, which is arising out of the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. Since the facts and circumstances as well as most of the grounds raised by the either party in their respective appeals and cross objection for all the assessment years under consideration being identical and common, therefore, as a matter of convenience thereof, these were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 3. We now proceed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
B.R. Mittal, J.M. 1. The assessee has filed this appeal for Assessment year 2009-10 against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 29.05.2012 on following grounds. I. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the depreciation of Rs.8,25,483/- claimed on the premise and furniture and fixtures and also erred in wrongly alleging that the business assets of the assessee company are not business assets. II. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the interest on housing loan of Rs.4,49,652/- paid to ICICI Bank Ltd. and added the same to the total income of the assessee company and thereby confirmed in treated the same for non-business purpose. III. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming and disallowance of repairs and maintenance of Rs.75,061/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee company and thereby treated the same for non-business purpose. IV. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
D. Karunakara Rao, AM: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee on 3.6.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-4, Mumbai dated 23.3.2011 for the assessment year 1997-1998. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. The Ld CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to consider the alternate claim of the appellant to disallow depreciation to the extent of Rs. 6,97,149/- in respect of addition to assets made in assessment year 1991-1992. The Ld CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the claim for depreciation on addition to assets made in assessment year 1991-1992 had been allowed in full by order dated March 4, 2011 of the Ld CIT (A). 2. The Ld CIT (A) ought to have directed the AO to allow entire depreciation on addition to assets made in assessment year 1991-1992. 3. The Ld CIT (A) erred in not directing the AO to exclude 90 per cent of net interest income for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 4. The Ld CIT (A) erred in not di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the impugned order 6th January 2012, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-X, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2003-04, in the matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for ` 4,41,000, by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers. It has developed a residential project at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, which was completed in the assessment year 1996-97. The return of income for the assessment year 2003 -04 was filed on 27th November 2003, declaring total income of ` 3,07,780. Thereafter the assessment was completed under section 143(3) accepting the return of income. Later on, such an assessment was set aside by the learned Commissioner under the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 and in pursuance thereof, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order date d20th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
D. Karunakara Rao, AM: 1. There are four appeals under consideration. Out of four appeals, there are cross appeals for the AY 2007-2008. ITA No. 8418/M/2010 (2007-2008) and ITA No.6312/M/2011 (AY 2008-2009) are filed by the Revenue and ITA No.6005/M/2011 (AY 2008-2009) and CO No.138/M/2012 (AY 2007-2008) are filed by the assessee. Since, the identical issues are involved in all these four appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise and ground wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs. 2. Firstly we shall take-up the Revenue appeal filed on 3.12.2010 vide ITA No.8418/M/2010 for the AY 2007-2008 against the order of the CIT (A)-23, Mumbai dated 7.9.2010. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 8,50,23,349/- in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order 9th November 2011, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-XIX, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2007-08, in the matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) M/s. Falcon Crest Condominium for 2,00,204, by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a housing society and is formed as condominium of residents rather than a co-operative society. The status of the assessee is more of an Association of Persons (for short "AOP"), whose members contribute their monthly maintenance and other charges towards common cause like property tax, security charges, water tax, etc. Since the entire activity is among the members with no profit motive, the assessee's claim has been that it is based on concept of "mutuality" not liable to be tax vis-a-vis expenditure incurred. In the return of income, the assessee had shown ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
D. Karunakara Rao, AM: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee on 24.10.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-17, Mumbai dated 19.8.2011 for the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1.1. The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,15,094/- by way of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 1.2. the Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that on proper computation under Rule 8D the disallowance would be only Rs.1,797/-. 2.1. The Ld CIT (A) erred in not admitting the letter dated 8.11.2010 and the confirmation of director and in deciding the appeal ignoring the same. 2.2. The Ld CIT (A) erred in holding that appellant had not filed any details before the AO. 2.3. The Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that as desired by the AO, the appellant had filed details vide letters dated 28.7.2010 and 16.8.2010. 3.1. The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 35,506/- out of traveling expenses. 4.1. The Ld CIT (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Sanjay Arora, A. M.: 1. This is a set of three Appeals by the Assessee directed against the Orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short), dismissing the assessee's appeals contesting its assessments u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for three consecutive assessment years (A.Ys.), being AY 2006-07 to 2008-09. The appeals raising common issues, were heard together, and are accordingly being disposed of vide a common, consolidated order. 2. The first issue, raised per ground no. 1 for all the years, is the disallowance of unverifiable cash expenses at 25% of such expenses. The assessee, a Custom House Agent (CHA), providing clearing and forwarding services to his clients, was found during the course of the assessment proceedings to have claimed expenses in cash, i.e., apart from those supported by third party vouchers, per self-made vouchers (at Rs.43,26,193/-). Being, thus, unsubstantiated by evidence, the Revenue, relyin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
D. Karunakara Rao, AM: 1. There are four appeals under consideration. Out of four appeals, there are cross appeals for the AY 2007-2008. ITA No. 8418/M/2010 (2007-2008) and ITA No.6312/M/2011 (AY 2008-2009) are filed by the Revenue and ITA No.6005/M/2011(AY 2008-2009) and CO No.138/M/2012 (AY 2007-2008) are filed by the assessee. Since, the identical issues are involved in all these four appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise and ground wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs. 2. Firstly we shall take-up the Revenue appeal filed on 3.12.2010 vide ITA No.8418/M/2010 for the AY 2007-2008 against the order of the CIT (A)-23, Mumbai dated 7.9.2010. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 8,50,23,349/- in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
B.R. Mittal, JM. 1. The department has filed these two appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 against orders of ld. CIT(A) dated 22.11.2010 and dated 16.3.2012 respectively on the following grounds : Grounds of appeal taken by department in this appeal are as under : "1. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under section 80lB to the assessee, without appreciating the fact that the total commercial space of the assessee's project is 6.12% of the built up area whereas as per clause (d) of the section 80IB(10), inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2005, the maximum commercial space in a project is allowed up to 5% of the built up areas only; 2 I.T.A.No.809/Mum/2011 2. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under section 80lB to the assessee relying on the judgment of special bench in the case of Brahma and Associates reported in 119 ITD 255, ignoring that ...
Tag this Judgment!