168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…als Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Bank of\nIndia v. Dv. CIT. and vice versa [IT Appea…

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…als Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Bank of\nIndia v. Dv. CIT. and vice versa [IT Appea…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…als Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systems Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Bank of\nIndia v. Dv. CIT. and vice versa [IT Appeal…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…als Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Bank of\nIndia v. Dv. CIT. and vice versa [IT Appea…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM A.Y.2006-07 [ by Assessee] & ITA No. 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 A.Y.2007-08 [ By AO] & [By Assessee] Vs. State Bank of India The Additional 3rd Floor, Commissionerof Income tax Corporate Centre Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Madam Cama Road Room No 545, Aykar Bhavan Nariman Point Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulkadir Jawad Wala Revenue by Shri P C Chhhotaray Special Counsel Shri Dr Kishor Dhule…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM ITA No. 3868/MUM/2013 [ by Assessee] & ITA No . 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] Vs. ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 [ By AO] & ITA no 4105/MUM/2014 [By Assessee] A.Y .2006-07 A.Y .2007-08 State Bank of India 3 r d Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 The Add it ional Commissionerof Income tax Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Room No 545 , Aykar Bhavan Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulka…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

…pitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103 (Chennai)], Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168 Taxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574 (Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra) 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by inviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Bank of India v. Dy. CIT, and vice versa [IT Appeal Nos 5…

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Dy.Commissioner Of Income Vs. State Bank Of India Tax Financial Reporting & Circle-2(2)(1) Taxation Department 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Mumbai State Bank Bhavan Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs8577K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…arnataka High Court) • DCITv. Paini Computer Systems Limited (2007) (114 ITD 159) (Pune Tribunal) • DOT v. Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) (300IR 1) (Supreme Court) • Pooja Bhatt v. DOT (2008) (26 SOT 574) (Mum) • DOT v. Mideast India Ltd. (2009) (28 SOT 395) (Del) • DOT v. Essar Oil Limited (2011) (47 SOT 139) (Mum) • CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Limited (ITA No. 1148 of 2012) (Bombay 6 State Bank of India High Court). 5.1. Apart from the above, the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bank of India vs. DCIT reported in 27 taxmann.com 335 in support of it…

TECNIMONT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , RG- 13 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

…ITR 508 (Karnataka)], DCIT Vs Patni Computer Systems Ltd [114 ITD 159 (Pune)], Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited [53 SOT 103 (Chennai)], DCIT Vs Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. (300 ITR 1), Pooja Bhatt Vs DCIT (26 SOT 574), DCIT Vs Mideast India Ltd [28 SOT 395 (Del)], CIT Vs Patni Computer Systems Limited (ITA No. 1148 of 2012; Hon‟ble Bombay High Court) and Apollo Enterprises Limited s DCIT [ 23 taxmann.com 168 (Chennai- Tribunal)]. [5] Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by inviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Bank of India Vs DCIT, an…