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)

6,38,21,500/- , while the total refund due to the assessee was Rs. 2,80,69,376/- ( Rs. 1,09,84,740/- vide order u/s 143(1) and Rs. 1,70,84,640/- vide order dated 29.06.2015) and hence it could be said that the refund has fallen due to the assessee mainly on account of self assessment

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

6 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India does not arise. In this regard the ld. AR drew our attention to the following table which includes the details pertaining to the year under consideration also – 8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that

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

6 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India does not arise. In this regard the ld. AR drew our attention to the following table which includes the details pertaining to the year under consideration also – 8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that

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

6 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India does not arise. In this regard the ld. AR drew our attention to the following table which includes the details pertaining to the year under consideration also – 8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that

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

6 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India does not arise. In this regard the ld. AR drew our attention to the following table which includes the details pertaining to the year under consideration also – 8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM USA INC.,TEXAS vs. DCIT (IT) 4 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth ()

iii) the use of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property. 4.8 Thus consideration for the use of a process is covered within the ambit of the definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) further clarifies the meaning

ACIT 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS MAHARASTRA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

TDS. 7. Interest as defined in section 2(28A) of the Act means interest 7. Interest as defined in section 2(28A) of the Act means interest 7. Interest as defined in section 2(28A) of the Act means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt e in any manner in respect

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

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

III. The introduction of the word ‘deduction’ in Section 10A by the amendment, in the absence of any contrary material, and in view of the scope of the deductions contemplated by Section 10A as already discussed, ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 28 it has to be understood that the Section embodies a clear enunciation of the legislative decision to alter

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

III. The introduction of the word ‘deduction’ in Section 10A by the amendment, in the absence of any contrary material, and in view of the scope of the deductions contemplated by Section 10A as already discussed, ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 28 it has to be understood that the Section embodies a clear enunciation of the legislative decision to alter

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

iii) of the Act ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) raised by the Assessee are allowed and therefore Ground No.1(e) to 1(h) raised by the Assessee are dismissed as being infructuous. Ground No. 2(a) to 2(e) 15. Ground

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

iii) of the Act ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) raised by the Assessee are allowed and therefore Ground No.1(e) to 1(h) raised by the Assessee are dismissed as being infructuous. Ground No. 2(a) to 2(e) 15. Ground

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

iii) of the Act ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) raised by the Assessee are allowed and therefore Ground No.1(e) to 1(h) raised by the Assessee are dismissed as being infructuous. Ground No. 2(a) to 2(e) 15. Ground

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

6,10,80,181) with it. This amount ) with it. This amount include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assessee of Rs. include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assess include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assess 1,42,22,628/-. Thus . Thus, the assessee has received amount of Rs. , the assessee has received amount

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

6,10,80,181) with it. This amount ) with it. This amount include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assessee of Rs. include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assess include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assess 1,42,22,628/-. Thus . Thus, the assessee has received amount of Rs. , the assessee has received amount

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

iii) of Explanation 2 r.w.\nexplanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Dishnet Wireless Ltd. Tax Case Appeal\nNo. 831, 832, 833, 836 and 838 of 2016, order dated 17.05.2024, has remanded this\nissue back

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

iii) of Explanation 2 r.w.\nexplanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Dishnet Wireless Ltd. Tax Case Appeal\nNo. 831, 832, 833, 836 and 838 of 2016, order dated 17.05.2024, has remanded this\nissue back