Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat mumbai Page 5 of about 2,049 results (0.134 seconds)

Feb 15 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Arco Electro Asst. Commissioner of Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ran ...

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Rajendra, A.M. Following Grounds of Appeal have been filed by the appellant against the Order dt. 13-08-2010 of the CIT(A)-16, Mumbai : 1.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made ofRs.42,09,552/- being the commission payment made which be deleted. (b) The learned CIT(A) erred in stating that, the payment is made against public policy and erred in stating that, explanation to section 37(1) is applicable and that the payments made are in the nature of illegal gratification. (c) The learned CIT(A) and the assessing officer erred in observing that, no details as to services rendered were filed. (d) The appellant prays that the amount of Rs.42,09,552/- paid being business expenditure incurred in course of the business be allowed in full and addition deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave to add amend or alter any or all of the ground of appeal. 2. Assessee-company, engaged in the business of manufacturing of Brush Ho...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Mahindra Ugine Vs. Steel Co. Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, JM. 1. These two appeals preferred by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dtd. 9-2-2011 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000. Since facts are identical and common issue is involved, both these appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case extracted from ITA No. 3212/Mum/2011 for A.Y. 1997-98 are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of tool, alloy special steel and processing charges of stampings unit. During the course of assessment proceeding the assessee was inter alia asked to submit the details in respect of leave encashment benefit of Rs. 17,98,331/-. In reply it was submitted as under:- "No provision has been made for labour demands in the relevant previous year, regarding provision for leave encashment benefit the company has made a provision of Rs. 17,98,331/- on the, basis of actuarial valuation. This was mad...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Bennett, Coleman Vs. Income-tax- Range

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, JM. : 1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order dtd. 2-9-2010 passed by the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Mumbai for the assessment year 1997-98. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of printing and publishing of newspapers and periodicals, guaranteeing, money lending, exports, telecasting and broadcasting on TV and radio. It filed the return declaring total income of Rs. 158,12,88,918.00. The A.O. after processing the return u/s 143 (1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act), selected the case for scrutiny and accordingly issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The assessee has also filed revised return of income at total income of Rs. 158,01,27,570.00 However, the assessment after making certain additions and disallowances including disallowances of repair expenses Rs. 58,92,803.00 was completed at an income of Rs. 1,659,031,250.00 vide order dtd. 30-3-2000 passed u/s 143(3) ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2013 (TRI)

Hercules Hoists Limited Acit Vs. Mumbai

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Sanjay Arora, A.M. 1. This is a set of four Appeals by the Assessee directed against the Orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 07.09.2010, 07.09.2010, 21.12.2010 and 13.09.2011 for four consequent years, being assessment years (AYs) 2005-06 to 2008-09, partly allowing the assessee's appeals against its assessments u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the relevant years. 2. The appeals raising common issues, were heard together and are being disposed of vide a common, consolidated order. The principal issue arising in these appeals, raised by the assessee per its Ground No. 1, is in respect of determination of its business income for the relevant years without allowing it set off of depreciation / losses of its two Units, i.e., Windmill 1 and 2, income from which is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA. 2.1 The basis of the Assessing Officer's (A.O.) disallowance, since confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2013 (TRI)

M/S.Bayer Material Science Pvt. the Asstt.Commissioner of Ltd. Vs. Mum ...

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

R.S. Syal (AM): 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 12.10.2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A) in relation to the A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2004-05. Since some common issues are involved in these appeals, we are therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. A.Y. 2004-05:- 2. First ground of this appeal is against upholding the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in disallowing the brought forward loss of Bayer TPU Pvt. Ltd. (amalgamating company)(hereinafter called as BTPU) amounting to Rs. 7,73,00,414/- u/s. 72A of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of this ground are that two separate companies - BTPU and Bayer Specialty Products Pvt. Ltd. (BSPPL) - got amalgamated with the assessee-company in the year under consideration. Initially, the assessee claimed a set off of loss of Rs. 12.53 crore u/s.72A of the Act. However, in the revised computation of income, the amount of brought forward loss was re...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2013 (TRI)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. Shri Mohammad Farooq Tax Range

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

VIVEK VARMA, JM: 1. The appeal is filed by the department, against the order of CIT(A) XXVII, Mumbai, dated 09.03.2009, wherein, the following grounds have been taken: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the agreement made between assessee and developer was a fraud made by brother of assessee and deleted the additions made on account of on money received by assessee which was identified on the basis of incriminating papers seized during the action u/s. 132 of I.T. Act, in the case of CPDPL (Developer of the property). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of receipt of on money holding that the AO has not brought any confirmation or material evidence on record for the receipt of the funds. 2. The solitary issue is with regard to deletion of addition made on account of on money received by the assessee. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Mardia Extrusions Ltd. and Another Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai and ...

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

D. Manmohan, V.P. 1. These two appeals involve an identical issue and they arise out of the orders passed by the CIT(A)-8, Mumbai wherein penalty levied by the AO having been affirmed by the learned CIT(A), assessee challenged before us by contending that the addition made in the assessment proceedings is only on account of the addition agreed upon by the assessees before the Central Excise authority under the KVSS scheme whereas the circumstances indicate that it was neither a case of concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and hence it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. 2. The facts in both the appeals being identical the facts mentioned in the case of M/s. Mardia Extrusions Ltd. are reproduced herein to highlight the issue before us. The assessee, M/s. Mardia Extrusions Ltd. was engaged in the business of manufacturing Brass Rods, Brass Tubes, Brass Wires, etc. by utilising the raw material such as Brass Billets, Brass Ingots, etc. On 01.10.1993 a search w...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2013 (TRI)

Siemens Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the CIT (A)-11, Mumbai in relation to the order passed under section 195(2), inter alia on the following grounds of appeal: "1. Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-ll [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] ought to have held that no tax is required to be deducted @ 10% from the payment to be made to Pehla Testing Laboratory (Pehla) towards type tests. 2. The CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the payment to be made mainly for standard facility provided by laboratory using highly sophisticated equipment and is essential and core ingredient for carrying out the test. CIT (A) wrongly ignored this aspect which is going to the root of the case. Even while noting that Pehla carried out type test using sophisticated equipment without any human intervention CIT (A) failed to address the topic and wrongly held that consid...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2013 (TRI)

Caylx Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Dcit Range 8(1), Ltd. Vs. Pa No.Aa ...

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The assesee has filed these three appeals for assessment year 2005-06 against order dated 10.11.2010, for assessment year 2006-07 against order dated 18.1.2010 and for assessment year 2007-08 against order dated 29.10.2010 of ld CIT(A) . 2. Since most of the grounds and relevant facts in all these appeals are common, we heard these appeals together and dispose them off by a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. Firstly, we take up appeal for assessment year 2005-06 being I.T.A. No.34/M/2011. Grounds of appeal taken by assessee are as under: Ground No.1 "1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 16 Mumbai [the CIT (A)1 erred in confirming the disallowance made by DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Range 8 (1), Mumbai (the AO) of Rs. 12,37,420/- on account Depreciation on building purchased from firm. 2. On the facts and Circumstances of the case Learned CIT (A) ought to have held that since the Appellant had paid the consideration to the firm in terms of agreement for ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2013 (TRI)

M/S Greaves Cotton Limited and Another Vs. the Income Tax Officerand A ...

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

P.M. Jagtap, A.M. 1. These two appeals, one filed by the assessee being ITA No.3103/Mum/2011 and the other filed by the Revenue being ITA No. 4450/Mum/2011 are cross appeals which are directed against the order of learned CIT(Appeals)-15, Mumbai dated 10-03-2011. 2. In ground No. 1 of its appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the learned CIT(Appeals) in setting aside the issue relating to disallowance of Rs.48,94,509/- on account of MK 20 Development Expenses to the AO despite the fact that all the relevant details were available on record. 3. The assessee in the present case is a Company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of engines. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 27-11-2003 declaring a loss of Rs.71,98,89,222/-. In the profit and loss account filed along with the said return, the assessee had debited Rs.47,76,850/- and Rs.1,21,659/- on account of MK 20 Engine Development Expenditure. In the assessment co...

Tag this Judgment!


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