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.
M/S. Falcon Crest Condominium, Mumbai Vs. Income Tax Officer Mumbai
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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 ...
The Acit, Cir 4(2) M/S. Harinagar Sugar Mills. Mumbai-. Ltd Vs. World ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
DR. S.T.M. Pavalan, JM: 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) -8, Mumbai dated 23.11.2011 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground No. 1 relates to the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of deduction of capital subsidy from WDV of Plant and Machinery and the disallowance of proportionate depreciation. 2.1. Briefly stated, the assessee, a company during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, received a subsidy of Rs.4,11,43,000/- under "Bihar Incentive Package, 2006" for undertaking expansion of the capacity ITA No. 772/Mum/2012 from 8500 TCD to 10000TCD. The said scheme was formulated by the Government of Bihar to promote the establishment of new units and for expansion of capacity of existing units. According to the said scheme, 10% subsidy on fixed capital investment (Machinery and Equipments) subject to maximum subsidy upto to Rs. 10 crores was granted in case of ...
Yardly Investment and Tradingt Co. Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Rajendra, AM. 1. Challenging the order dt.30.08.2011 of the CIT(A)-30,Mumbai,assessee-company and the AO have filed Cross appeals. Assessee has raised following Grounds of Appeal: "1.The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law, ultra vires the provision of the Act against the principles of natural justice and deserves to be condemned in totality. 2. The order of learned CIT (Appeals) has been passed with surmises, conjectures, undue haste and high headed approach on the part of the learned CIT(Appeals) without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in out rightly rejecting the prayer of the appellant to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in concluding that the transaction of purchase is not backed by evidence especially since the appellant had a written MOU with the SELLER (submitted...
Givaudan Flavours India P.Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
1. The present appeals have been preferred by the Revenue challenging the impugned separate orders dated 22nd September 2014, for the assessment year 2002-03 and order dated 22nd December 2012, for the assessment year 2004-05, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Mumbai. The assessee has also raised cross objections which are arising out of the aforesaid appeals preferred by the Revenue. 2. Since the grounds raised by Revenue in its appeals and the grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objections for both the years under appeal are common, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. We first proceed to dispose of the appeals preferred by the Revenue, vide which, following grounds have been raised:- Grounds raised in the assessment year 2002-03 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow dedu...
Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
D. Karunakara Rao, AM: 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue on 27.6.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-19, Mumbai dated 12.4.2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 4,85,95,725/- made on account of value of closing stock in respect of unavailed cenvat balance as at year end by applying provision of section 145A. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT (A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored." 3. At the outset, Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the grounds filed by the Revenue and mentioned that the identical issue i.e., the addition made on account of closing stock in respect of unavailed cenvat was decided in favour of the assessee vide the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.7755/M/2011 (AY 2008-2009), dated 20.3.2013. I...
Vijay Builders, Mumbai Vs. the Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1)(2) Mumbai
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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...
Malti R. Bhatia, Mumbai Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
1. The cross appeals for the assessment year 2005 -06 are directed against the impugned order dated 11th January 2010, cross appeals for the assessment year 2006-07, are directed against the impugned order dated 12th February 2010 and cross appeals for the assessment year 2007-08, are directed against the impugned order dated 2nd November 2010, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) -XXVII, Mumbai, for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 2. Since the facts, circumstances and the grounds raised by the rival parties in all these cross appeals being common, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of Mrs. Malti Rahul Bhatia by way of this consolidated order. However, in order to understand the implications, we first proceed to dispose of the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06, narrating the facts as they appear in Revenue's appeal in ITA no.2823/Mum./2010, t...
M/S. Growell Consultants P.Ltd Vs. the Income Tax Officer Ltd
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
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 ...
Prerna Shikshan Mandal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through I ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ghodeswar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported at 1993 (2) Mh.L.J.1467 (Vidya Vikas Khandekar V/s. Balmandir Sanstha). 2. Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard the matter finally with the consent of parties by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner no.1 “ Management runs four schools in Chandrapur district. All these schools are duly recognized and Samrat Ashok High School at Chinchpalli i.e. one out of these schools is only receiving grant-in-aid. One Shri Siddhartha Raut was working as Headmaster in unaided Samrat Ashok High School at Lohara. Headmaster Shri N.U. Ramteke working in aided school superannuated on 31/10/2012. Petitioners, therefore, transferred said Raut to aided school and sought approval thereto. The approval has not been granted ...
Vaman Govind Raut and Others Vs. Sitaram Narayan Raut and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
The predecessor-in-title of the respondents herein (the original plaintiff) sued the appellants herein (defendants) for injunction against interference of their possession in the suit plots of land, stated to be bearing Survey Nos. 181/2 and 182/0 of Village Sal, Taluka Bicholim, Goa. The respondents herein (the plaintiffs) have continued the lis. The defendants counter claimed, claiming ownership and prayed for deletion of the plaintiffs' name in the survey records. The plaintiffs suit came to be decreed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bicholim on 9th August, 2000. The defendants' counter-claim was dismissed. 2. The defendants appealed. The appeal has been dismissed on 27th March, 2003. The defendants have filed this second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact of the plaintiffs' title in the suit property. 3. The plaintiffs' title must be first shown. If the plaintiffs do not show title, they would not be entitled to injunction claimed against interference to their possess...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »