Mumbai Court January 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Presterss Wire Industries and Another Vs. Acit-12(1), Mumbai and Anoth ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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...
Underwater Services Co. Vs. Asst. Cit-12 (3)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Sanjay Arora, A. M.: 1. This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 30.07.2012, dismissing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated 21.11.2011. 2. The only issue arising in the instant appeal is the confirmation of the disallowance in the sum of Rs.86.40 lacs u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the first appellate authority. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a company engaged in providing under-water services, such as diving; towing; salvaging; underwater marine repairs and maintenance. For the purpose of its operations it hired charter vessels from its sister concern, M/s. Samson Maritime Ltd. (SML), claiming the charter expenses for the year at Rs.441.37 lacs. The same is liable for tax deduction u/s.194-I of the Act. The payee, SML, applied to the Revenue in ...
Presstress Wire Indsutries Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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...
Mahindra Lifespace Developers Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle 6(3)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Sanjay Arora, A. M.: 1. These are cross Appeals, i.e., by the Assessee and the Revenue, arising out of the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 30.11.2010, partly allowing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2007-08 vide order dated 03.12.2009. 2. We may take up the assessee's appeal first, i.e., in the order the two appeals were heard by us. The principal issue arising in the assessee's appeal, projected per its first three grounds, is the head of income under which the hire charges on the operation of a commercial complex, being at Rs.452.32 lacs for the current year, is to be assessed, i.e., either as 'income from house property' or as 'business income'. Explaining the assessee's case, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee's counsel, would submit that the issue is covered in the assessee's favour by the decision b...
Rajesh R. Karnani, Mumbai Vs. Asst. Cit 12(1)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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...
M/S. Yash Developers, Mumbai Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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 ...
S.H.A.M.K. International P.Ltd and Another Vs. Ito -9(3)(1) and Anothe ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
1. These appeals and cross objections filed by the Revenue and the Assessee are directed against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) -20, Mumbai dated 02.12.2010 for the Assessment Years 2000-01, 2001-02 and the order dated 03.12.2010 for the assessment year 2002-03, deleting the penalties levied by the AO under section ITA Nos. 1410, 1411 and 1413/Mum/2011 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Since identical issues are involved in all these appeals and cross objections, the same are heard together and disposed off this common order. 2. The relevant facts are that during the assessment years under consideration, various additions on account of ad hoc disallowance of credit card expenses, ad hoc disallowance of telephone expenses, disallowance of donation and estimated profit of receipts of turnover have been made by the AO. Consequently in the penalty proceedings, the AO levied penalties on the respective additions made by him by invoking section 271(1)(...
Worldwide Media P. Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Mumb ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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 ...
Palmtrade Services P. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2)(4 ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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 (...
Amal Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai. Near Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange, Dadar ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »