85 Taxmann.com 10 (Bom.) and Jeevan Investment and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

State Bank of India(As A Successor to Bhaartiya Mahila Bank Limited), Mumbai vs. Principle Commissionr of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1052/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Pcit-2, Mumbai (As A Successor To Bhartiya Room No. 344, Aayakar Vs. Mahila Bank Limited) Bhavan, M. K. Road, Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020. Taxation 3Rd Floor, Corporation Centre Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Smt. Nilu Jaggi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Bank Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02, Mumbai Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Wherein It Has Challenged The Validity Of Ao Passing The Order In The Name Of Erstwhile Bhartiya Mahila Bank Limited (Hereinafter “Bmbl”), Even Though, It Was Merged With M/S. State Bank Of India W.E.F. 01.04.2017 (Vide Notification Dated 22.02.2017). In This Regard, It Is Noted That From 01.04.2017, Bhartiya Mahila Bank Ltd Got Merged/Amalgamated

…of assessee to even produce the invoice relating to the expenditure before the Ld. PCIT. Therefore, we relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bom) (2017) 291 CTR 241 (Bom), find that the AO failed to examine the claim of expense and erred in allowing such an expenses/CBS Fees. In the absence of examination of the claim made by the assessee the finding of Ld. PCIT 16 A.Y. 2017-18 State Bank of India that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue qua the expenditure claime…

Bla Power Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commm of Income Tax-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…indeed looked into. 14. During the hearing, the learned DR placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Ballarpur industries Ltd., [2017] 85 Taxmann.com 10 (Bom.) and Jeevan Investment and Finance Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, [2017] 291 CTR 241(Bom.) The learned DR also placed reliance upon the BLA Power Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.1180/Mum./2022 decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Sify Software Ltd. Vs ACIT, [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 273 (Chennai-Trib.). From the perusal of the decisions, we find that in the facts before the Hon’ble Courts either the question raised was not responded to…

Martin and Harris Laboratories Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020

In the result, the present appeal by the Assessee is allowed

…ITA. No. 627/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Section 80IC/80G of the Act, which were replied to by the Appellant. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, City -1, Mumbai : [2017] 291 CTR 241 (Bombay), relied upon by the Ld. Departmental Representative, is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the necessary information to support the claim was not furnished by the Assessee to the Assessing Officer. Whereas in the case before, us all the relevant information/details were available on record. Further, the ca…

Anand Lilaram Raisinghani, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent specified in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…he claim only on satisfaction after verification / inquiry on his part. A view in the absence of examination is no view but only a chance result. Similar analogous view has been taken by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Jeevan Investment & Finance P.Ltd. V/s CIT (291 CTR 241) & Shoreline Hotel P. Ltd. V/s CIT (98 Taxmann.com 234). The other case laws as placed on record by Ld. CIT-DR also support the same view. 4.5 An Explanation-2 has been inserted by Finance Act 2015 in Section 263 with effect from 01/06/2015 to declare that order shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the…