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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

36 of 2003),\n(d) in the case of a company governed by any other law for the time being in\nforce, any matters which are not required to be disclosed by that law.\"\n44. The second proviso applies to any insurance company, hanking company\nor any company engaged in the generation or supply of electricity or to any\nother

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

2 raised in Revenue's appeal are\nrendered academic and, thus, are dismissed.\n47. Ground No.3, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the deduction of\ntaxes paid by the assessee outside India. We find that this issue does not\nemanate from the order passed by the lower authorities. Therefore, this\nground does not require adjudication.\n48. Grounds No.4

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is noticed that,\nSection 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way\nof interest is obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section\n194A(3) provides that Section 194A(1) shall not apply if the\npayment

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

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is noticed that,\nSection 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way\nof interest is obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section\n194A(3) provides that Section 194A(1) shall not apply if the\npayment

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

2(1).\n“The law on re-opening of an assessment under the Act is fairly settled. An assessment once\nmade, is final. The Assessing Officer can re-open an assessment only in accordance with the\nexpress provisions provided in section 147/148. This is for the reason that there is a\nfinality/sanctity attached to an assessment order. It is only

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing\nfrom the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:-\n19\nITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/2023 & 2971-2970/M/2023\nSmall Industries Development Bank of India\nThe issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms of\nSection 36

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing\nfrom the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:-\n16\nITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/2023 & 2971-2970/M/2023\nSmall Industries Development Bank of India\n19.\nThe issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms of\nSection 36

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing\nfrom the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:-\n\n19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms of\nSection 36(1)(viii) for the application of the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

2(1).\n“The law on re-opening of an assessment under the Act is fairly settled. An assessment once\nmade, is final. The Assessing Officer can re-open an assessment only in accordance with the\nexpress provisions provided in section 147/148. This is for the reason that there is a\nfinality/sanctity attached to an assessment order. It is only

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. BRIGGS TRADING CO, P. LTD, MUMBAI

2\nM/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.\nORDER\nPER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM\n\nThese appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed\nagainst two separate orders dated 23.01.2014 and 15.01.2014\npassed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-14,\nMumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment years 2008-09\nand 2009-10 respectively. As common issue

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex