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

1 to 160\nof the paper book filed by the assessee. It is noticed that assessing officer has\nspecifically asked the assessee vide notice dated 24.11.2016 to provide the detail\nof income tax reversal on distribution of unsecured perpetual securities. In this\nregard assessee has given detailed submission vide letter dated 16.12.2016\nstating that it has issued 11.4% unsecured perpetual

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

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

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

purchase during the year?" 3. Question No. i arises out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the issue before the Assessing Officer for proper verification of facts. The record would suggest that the assessee, in view of its success before the Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of interest credited to Interest Suspense Account

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

purchase during the year?" 3. Question No. i arises out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the issue before the Assessing Officer for proper verification of facts. The record would suggest that the assessee, in view of its success before the Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of interest credited to Interest Suspense Account

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

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad come up before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1627/Mum/2014(supra). The Tribunal\nvide order dated 08/01/2016 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing\nOfficer to allow the deduction based on actual interest earned from eligible advances\nafter deducting cost and expenses on reasonable basis. The CIT(A) has restored the\nissue to Assessing

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

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad come up before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1627/Mum/2014(supra). The Tribunal\nvide order dated 08/01/2016 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing\nOfficer to allow the deduction based on actual interest earned from eligible advances\nafter deducting cost and expenses on reasonable basis. The CIT(A) has restored the\nissue to Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. J D ELECTRIC WORKS, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. On further appeal On further appeal, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, , the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced

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

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad come up before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1627/Mum/2014(supra). The Tribunal\nvide order dated 08/01/2016 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing\nOfficer to allow the deduction based on actual interest earned from eligible advances\nafter deducting cost and expenses on reasonable basis. The CIT(A) has restored the\nissue to Assessing

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

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad come up before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1627/Mum/2014(supra). The Tribunal\nvide order dated 08/01/2016 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing\nOfficer to allow the deduction based on actual interest earned from eligible advances\nafter deducting cost and expenses on reasonable basis. The CIT(A) has restored the\nissue to Assessing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated for ‘concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income’. Though, Section 270A of the Act was mentioned there was no reference to under-reporting or misreporting of income. In the subsequent notice dated 18/01/2022 and 10/11/2023 issued under Section 274 read with 270A of the Act, the Assessing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated for ‘concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income’. Though, Section 270A of the Act was mentioned there was no reference to under-reporting or misreporting of income. In the subsequent notice dated 18/01/2022 and 10/11/2023 issued under Section 274 read with 270A of the Act, the Assessing

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated for ‘concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income’. Though, Section 270A of the Act was mentioned there was no reference to under-reporting or misreporting of income. In the subsequent notice dated 18/01/2022 and 10/11/2023 issued under Section 274 read with 270A of the Act, the Assessing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated for ‘concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income’. Though, Section 270A of the Act was mentioned there was no reference to under-reporting or misreporting of income. In the subsequent notice dated 18/01/2022 and 10/11/2023 issued under Section 274 read with 270A of the Act, the Assessing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated for ‘concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income’. Though, Section 270A of the Act was mentioned there was no reference to under-reporting or misreporting of income. In the subsequent notice dated 18/01/2022 and 10/11/2023 issued under Section 274 read with 270A of the Act, the Assessing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated for ‘concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income’. Though, Section 270A of the Act was mentioned there was no reference to under-reporting or misreporting of income. In the subsequent notice dated 18/01/2022 and 10/11/2023 issued under Section 274 read with 270A of the Act, the Assessing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated for ‘concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income’. Though, Section 270A of the Act was mentioned there was no reference to under-reporting or misreporting of income. In the subsequent notice dated 18/01/2022 and 10/11/2023 issued under Section 274 read with 270A of the Act, the Assessing

BHOOMI CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed

bogus purchases to 12.5% of the purchase amount while confirming the disallowance of INR 13,17,884/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MUKESH HIRACHAND SANGHVI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

bogus purchases to 5% was reasonable given the nature of the business, and that the deletion of interest disallowance was justified as the advances were made for commercial expediency. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 145(3)", "Section 271(1)(C)", "Section 36