ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

TDS credit, while treating interest\ngrounds as consequential.\n8.\nIn A.Y. 2022–23, no independent addition or disallowance\nwas made in the regular assessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. The CIT(A) recorded that\nonly the income as processed under section 143(1

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

TDS credit, while treating interest grounds as consequential.\n8. In A.Y. 2022–23, no independent addition or disallowance was made in the regular assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. The CIT(A) recorded that only the income as processed under section 143(1

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

TDS credit, while treating interest\ngrounds as consequential.\n8.\nIn A.Y. 2022-23, no independent addition or disallowance\nwas made in the regular assessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. The CIT(A) recorded that\nonly the income as processed under section 143(1

JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

TDS refund of Rs. 1,05,613/- against the Appellant: against the Appellant: 1. A sum of Rs. 17,61,379/ A sum of Rs. 17,61,379/- under section 11(1 )(a) of the under section 11(1 )(a) of the Act Act Act being being being amount amount amount accumulated accumulated accumulated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act in appeal filed against order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Similarly, in Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue has challenged the action of CIT(A) granting relief to the Assessee without calling for a remand report. Ground No. 3 & 4 are directed against the grant of TDS

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act in appeal filed against order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Similarly, in Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue has challenged the action of CIT(A) granting relief to the Assessee without calling for a remand report. Ground No. 3 & 4 are directed against the grant of TDS

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act in appeal filed against order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Similarly, in Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue has challenged the action of CIT(A) granting relief to the Assessee without calling for a remand report. Ground No. 3 & 4 are directed against the grant of TDS

BALRAJSINGH JAGJITSINGH KHARBANDA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Balrajsinghjagjitsingh Adit, Cpc Bangalore, Kharbanda, Cpc, Bangalore-560500. C/3, Ravi Darshan, Sherly Vs. Rajan Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Adhpk 1733 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh S. Kothari Revenue By : Kamble Minal Mohan, Dr : Date Of Hearing 05/06/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 07/06/2023 Order

143(1)(a) of the Act referred by the Ld CPC are reproduced f are reproduced for ready reference: (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely: following adjustments

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

143 or section 144 or] section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

1) cannot be challenged by the assessee through appeal before him against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. (v) With respect to the TDS adjustment the ld. CIT(A) referred to the provisions of section

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

1) cannot be challenged by the assessee through appeal before him against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. (v) With respect to the TDS adjustment the ld. CIT(A) referred to the provisions of section

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

1) cannot be challenged by the assessee through appeal before him against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. (v) With respect to the TDS adjustment the ld. CIT(A) referred to the provisions of section

PUNIT DEORA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

143(1) permitting adjustments based on TDS stood\nwithdrawn from AY 2018-19. Adjustment made being without Intimation\nas required under 1stproviso to section

SHILPA PRABHAKAR KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

143(1) and 154 passed by the CPC are considered. the CPC are considered. Ground No. 1 to 5 relates and confined to upward Ground No. 1 to 5 relates and confined to upward Ground No. 1 to 5 relates and confined to upward variance of income by Rs.35,26,484/ variance of income by Rs.35

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

143(1) Addition on account of accretion to reserve treated as Ground No.6 (6.1 to 6.6) LTCG Disallowance of Finance Cost under section 37(1) of the Ground No.7 (7.1 to 7.3) Act Short grant of advance tax credit Ground No. 8 (8.1 & 8.2) Short grant of TDS

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor