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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 195 and accordingly no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(i). 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in respect of contribution of Rs. 10,00,00,000 to SBI Retired Employees Medical Benefit Fund. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Cochin Tribunal in the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 195 and accordingly no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(i). 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in respect of contribution of Rs. 10,00,00,000 to SBI Retired Employees Medical Benefit Fund. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Cochin Tribunal in the case

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOAICATES P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Hindustan Thompson Income-Tax, Circle 16(1) Associates Private Room No. 439, 4 Th Floor, Limited V. Aayakar Bhawan 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg , Churchgate Peninsula Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach1463M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. B. Srinivas (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Smt. Aarti Vissanji &, Shri. Ajit C. Shah & Ms. Aastha Shah सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1206/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.12.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018

43D. Sections 30 to 37 grant various deductions on account of expenses / allowances etc. Section 38 restricts the amount of depreciation allowance u/s 32. Then comes section 40 with the marginal note "Amounts not deductible". It starts with the non-obstante clause by providing that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the amounts specified in this

IDBI BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-LTU(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalidbi Bank Ltd. 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005. Pan: Aabci8842G ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Ltu (2) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai ..... Respondent

section 43D of the Act provide that the categories of bad or doubtful debts would be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the RBI in relation to such debts. In other words, the Legislature envisages that the RBI guidelines are the primary criteria for determining whether a debt is bad or doubtful and the categories prescribed in rule

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that at\nthe time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued a\nNotification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat)\n106] which reads as under:-\nIncome-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3)(iii)(f)\nNotification No. S. O. 710, dated

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that at\nthe time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued a\nNotification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat)\n106] which reads as under:-\nIncome-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3) (iii) (f)\nNotification No. S. O. 710, dated

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that at\nthe time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued a\nNotification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat)\n106] which reads as under:-\nIncome-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3) (iii) (f)\nNotification No. S. O. 710, dated

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S IDBI BANK LTD , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. It is also submitted that even though the bonds are stated to be perpetual, the bank has an option of issuing call option after a period of 10 years. Further these bonds are being repaid which is evident from the borrowings schedule as per the Annual Report for March 2022 which establishes the fact that these are only borrowings

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

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that at\nthe time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued a\nNotification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat)\n106] which reads as under:-\nIncome-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3)(iii)(f)\nNotification No. S. O. 710, dated

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

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that at\nthe time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued a\nNotification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat)\n106] which reads as under:-\nIncome-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3)(iii)(f)\nNotification No. S. O. 710, dated

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that at\nthe time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued a\nNotification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat)\n106] which reads as under:-\nIncome-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3)(iii)(f)\nNotification No. S. O. 710, dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 4 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

43D read with rule 6 EA of rules. The Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of his predecessor in the case of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 confirmed the addition. State Bank of India ITA No. 3033/2873/Mum/2019 6 5.1 We find that identical issue has been adjudicated by the Tribunal(supra) in the case of the assessee

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

MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) 1(I), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

43D”. Thus, Section 30 to 43 provides various kinds of deductions which are to be made while computing the profit of the assessee from business or profession. Section 40 provides an exception to such 7 I.T.A. No.2971/Mum/2012 & 5868/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s. Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran deductions which have been provided in Section 30 to 38 and starts with

DISHA D. KAPASI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2009-10 Disha Devang Kapasi, Acit, Circle – 15(3), 1St B-607, Arihant Bldg., Floor, Matru Mandir, Vs. Sudha Park, Grant Road, Behind Garodia Nagar, Mumbai 400 077 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077

TDS shall be accepted . Also if the assessee is able to prove the above, the AO would accept the net commission income from the gross value of building material supply bills @ 0.75%. 7.3 Accordingly we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO to follow

DISHA DEVANG KAPASI (DISHA NISEET RUPANI),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15(3), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2011-12 Disha Devang Kapasi, Acit, 15(3)/Present (Disha Niseet Rupani) Jurisdiction- Ito 27(1)-4, Vs. B-607, Arihant Bldg., Tower 6, 4Th Floor, Sudha Park, Room No. 412, Vashi Behind Garodia Nagar, Rly. Station Complex, Ghatkopar (E), Vashi, Navi Mumbai- Mumbai 400 077 400 703. Pan No. : Angpk 4952 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

TDS shall be accepted . Also if the assessee is able to prove the above, the AO would accept the net 5 commission income from the gross value of building material supply bills @ 0.75%. 7.2 Accordingly we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore to the same to the file

DISHA DEVANG KAPASI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 15(3)(1) NEW WD 27(1)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2010-11 Disha Devang Kapasi, The Ito Ward 15(3)(1) B-607, Arihant Bldg., New Ward 27 (1)-4, Vs. Sudha Park, Tower 6, 4Th Floor, Behind Garodia Nagar, Room No. 412, Vashi Ghatkopar (E), Rly. Station Complex, Mumbai 400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400 703

TDS shall be accepted . Also if the assessee is able to prove the above, the AO would accept the net commission income from the gross value of building material supply bills @ 0.75%. 7.3 Accordingly we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO to follow