Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat mumbai Page 3 of about 2,049 results (0.153 seconds)

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Growell Consultants P.Ltd Vs. the Income Tax Officer Ltd

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!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

Amal Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai. Near Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange, Dadar ...

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!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Department of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

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...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

Yardly Investment and Tradingt Co. Vs. Department of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

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...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

Palmtrade Services P. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2)(4 ...

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!

Jan 30 2014 (TRI)

Libra Corporation, Mumbai Vs. Department of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

D. Karunakara Rao, AM: 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue on 4.7.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-30, Mumbai dated 4.4.2012 for the assessment year 2008-2009. 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) has erred in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/- after concluding that addition was consequence of difference of opinion without appreciating the facts that offering income either under the head of "Business and Profession" or "Capital Gain" substantial effect on the rate of tax and thus reduce the tax liability which can also well be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT (A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored." 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a Firm engaged in the business of Development and Const...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2014 (TRI)

Parag Parikh Financial Advisory Vs. 130/132 Sbs Marg, Mumbai

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dated 24.01.12 relevant to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has taken as many as eight grounds of appeal. However, at the outset the ld. representative of the assessee has stated at bar that he does not press grounds No.1, 2, 4 and 5. Hence, for the sake of brevity, we do not deem it necessary to reproduce the grounds which have not been pressed. There remains the following grounds of appeal are for adjudication by us. "3. The CIT(A) erred in disallowing transaction charges u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.8,37,889/-." 2. ITA No.3118/M/2012 M/s. Parag Parikh Financial Advisory Services Ltd. "6. The CIT(A) has gone beyond his powers to enhance the income under various heads, in particular LTCG by Rs.1,20,91,700/-." 7. The CIT(A) erred in calculating LTCG and made addition of Rs.1,20,91,700/-. 8. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the provisions of Section 47 (xiiia). As per the said sect...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2014 (TRI)

Subhash Mulchand Bhatija, Thane Vs Department of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

N.K. Billaiya, AM: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Thane dt.30.3.2012 pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 43,05,000/- levied by the Addl. CIT u/s. 271D of the Act. 3. For the year under consideration the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 26.12.2007. During the course of the 2 ITA No. 4345/M/2012 assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has provided gift entries amounting to Rs. 43,05,000/- to various parties and has declared a commission income at Rs. 1,30,200/-. The same was estimated at Rs. 2,15,250/- and addition of Rs. 85,000/- was made to the income of the assessee. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee has accepted following amounts of cash deposits from various persons during the year under consideration. S. No. Name of the person ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 2013 (TRI)

Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Formerly Glaxo India Ltd.) and ...

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Per Bench. These are cross appeals by assessee and Revenue and cross objections by assessee for assessment year 1998-99 arising out of the order of CIT (A)-XXVI Mumbai dated 25/03/2003 on order of AO under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel and the learned Departmental Representative. Learned Counsel placed on record a paper book and a chart indicating the issues which are covered by earlier orders. These are considered while disposing of these appeals. 3. Ground No.1 raised by assessee is as under: "The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVI Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A), erred in upholding the stand of the Jt. Commissioner of Income- tax Special Range 53 Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the JCIT) in not allowing the appellants claim for depreciation on Rs.22,67,281 and Rs.16,42,617 being part of the Share Dilution expenses incurred in the assessment year 1984-85 and 1986-87 submitted as relatable to programmes of capital e...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2013 (TRI)

Dilip C. Karnik Vs. Department of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

N.K. Billaiya, AM: 1. This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross objection by the assessee are directed against the very same order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dt. 24.6.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has raised following substantive grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), Mumbai, has erred in deciding that the tenancy rights in the property at Room No.2197, Building No.44 of Gandhi Nagar Pranav Co-operative Society Ltd., Bandra(E), Mumbai- 400 051 were owned jointly by the assessee and his partner in the firm M/s.Furnin Furnin Services 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, has erred in basing his decision merely upon an affidavit filed by the assessee, which was never filed before the A.O. and the contents of which were not borne out by the facts on record. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumb...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //