DCIT v. Mideast India Ltd.

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…

DCIT 1(2), Mumbai vs. Maharshtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai

In the result , the Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2004-05 is partly allowed and Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 is allowed

…up by the assessee and hence the asset generated thereon is not in use. These factual observations were not controverted by the revenue before us. 3.3. We also find that the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Essar Oil Ltd reported in 47 SOT 139 (Mumbai Trib) for the Asst Year 2003-04 had addressed the similar issue by following the tribunal order for the Asst Year 1996-97 (which was subsequently approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 921 of 2006 dated 16.10.2008). The relevant operative portion of the facts and decision rendered thereon are as under:- 2. The assessee is in the…

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)

…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 its contentions. The assessee submitted before the ld.…