STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2),, MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

STATE BANK OF INDIA- NRI BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

STATE BANK OF INDIA-RBO II THANE WESTERN BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

STATE BANK OF INDIA-ISB BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 222 to 227. 229 and 232 of the Aet without anv further notice.” 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that appeal was filed with a delay of 249 with a delay of 249 days

DEVIKA RAJESH JAGGI,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT RANGE-19, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

TDS has been made which is to be taxed as Income from Other Sources as per Section 56 read with Section 145A/145B of the Act. Since interest income was not taxed 6 ITA. No. 861/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 under the head „Income from Other Sources‟ the Assessment Order was erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

SELINA N. SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Selina N. Sheth Ito, Ward – 17(3)(1), M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400020. 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aabps9851L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

227/- as chargeable to tax. The ld. CIT(A) held that section 2(14)(c) specified that ULIP is a capital asset only when exemption under section 10(10D) does not apply on account of 4th& 5th proviso thereof and these particular clauses were introduced only with effect from 01.04.2021. 4th& 5th proviso of section 10(10D) were not applicable

ITO (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. MANDKE FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5776/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

TDS liability was determined at Rs. 17,08,967/- u/s 201 of the Act while interest liability u/s 201(1A) of the Act was computed at Rs. 6,15,227/- , thus in aggregate demand against u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act were computed to the tune of Rs. 23,24,194/- against the assessee vide orders dated 25.03.2013 passed

M/S ZENITH STEEL TUBES & INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Zenith Steel Tubes & Dy. Cit Cc 2(4), Industries Ltd., 802, Pratishta Bhavan, Old Vs. 204, Maker Bahvan No. 3, Cgo Building, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacca 3423 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hariom Tulsyan, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

TDS payable of Rs.76,227/-, Exise Duty payable of , Exise Duty payable of Rs.13,032/- professional tax Rs.31,575/ professional tax Rs.31,575/- and Gram Pancha and Gram Panchayat Tax Rs.13,97,660/-. The Assessing Officer has also noted that the . The Assessing Officer has also noted that the . The Assessing Officer has also noted that the amount of statutory

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections 45 to 55A of the Act whilst sections 111A and 115AD only\nprovide for determination of tax in certain cases and therefore, gains arising\non transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no\ndifferent and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in section\n70(2) of the Act;\n4. failed to appreciate that since section

ACIT 32(1), MUMBAI vs. INDEX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Index Income Tax, 32(1), Mumbai Shri Chandraiah B Kalal, Prop. Of Cb & Sons, Plot Vs. No. 7 D1, Mandar Chs Ltd., Rsc 21, Gorai 1, Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaafi3844E

TDS was deducted by the assessee under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act, the AO disallowed the commission paid amounting to ₹ 40,38,388/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) relying on the earlier years decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and also on the decision

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

227 of the companies Act, 1956? 7. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” Ground Nos.1 & 2 11. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

227 of the companies Act, 1956? 7. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” Ground Nos.1 & 2 11. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel