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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act observed as\nfollows: -\n\"16 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and\nperused the relevant material on record. As far as argument of rule of\nconsistency is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contention of the\nassessee following the decision

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

iii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a loss of Rs. 16,84,481/-on revaluation of on account of loss permanent category investments, even though the same is a notional loss and inadmissible in law? iv. on Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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

iii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a loss of Rs. 16,84,481/-on revaluation of on account of loss permanent category investments, even though the same is a notional loss and inadmissible in law? iv. on Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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(1)(iii

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

iii) of sub-section (3) of section\n194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government\nhereby notify with effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for\nthe purposes of the said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

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

iii) of sub-section (3) of section\n194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government\nhereby notify with effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for\nthe purposes of the said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

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

iii) of sub-section (3) of section\n194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government\nhereby notify with effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for\nthe purposes of the said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

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

iii) of sub-section (3) of section\n194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government\nhereby notify with effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for\nthe purposes of the said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

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)(iii

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

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

iii & iv. xx xx 17. As already stated, learned CIT – A passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2014–15 to assessment year 2020–21. The effect of the above order is as under: assessment addition made by the AO addition year on account of bogus confirmed by the purchases learned

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

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

iii & iv. xx xx 17. As already stated, learned CIT – A passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2014–15 to assessment year 2020–21. The effect of the above order is as under: assessment addition made by the AO addition year on account of bogus confirmed by the purchases learned

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

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

iii & iv. xx xx 17. As already stated, learned CIT – A passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2014–15 to assessment year 2020–21. The effect of the above order is as under: assessment addition made by the AO addition year on account of bogus confirmed by the purchases learned

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

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

iii & iv. xx xx 17. As already stated, learned CIT – A passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2014–15 to assessment year 2020–21. The effect of the above order is as under: assessment addition made by the AO addition year on account of bogus confirmed by the purchases learned

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

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

iii & iv. xx xx 17. As already stated, learned CIT – A passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2014–15 to assessment year 2020–21. The effect of the above order is as under: assessment addition made by the AO addition year on account of bogus confirmed by the purchases learned

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

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

iii & iv. xx xx 17. As already stated, learned CIT – A passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2014–15 to assessment year 2020–21. The effect of the above order is as under: assessment addition made by the AO addition year on account of bogus confirmed by the purchases learned

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

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

iii & iv. xx xx 17. As already stated, learned CIT – A passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2014–15 to assessment year 2020–21. The effect of the above order is as under: assessment addition made by the AO addition year on account of bogus confirmed by the purchases learned

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

1,33,78,824 35,24,070 Enterprises Vimalnath 36,10,050 17,62,298 19,40,968 14,13,598 58,81,762 58,81,762 35,81,809 Associates Divya 31,01,660 23,04,423 22,59,068 16,87,727 65,10,522 65,10,522 30,24,057 Corporation Total