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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee\nin the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs.1,16,75,281/- under\nsection 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of\nnumber of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of\nemployees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee\nin the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs.1,16,75,281/- under\nsection 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of\nnumber of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of\nemployees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee\nin the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs.1,16,75,281/- under\nsection 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of\nnumber of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of\nemployees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely:- (viii) income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation referred to in clause (b) of section 145A.] 57. Deductions The income chargeable under the head "Income from other sources" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely:- (viii) income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation referred to in clause (b) of section 145A.] 57. Deductions The income chargeable under the head "Income from other sources" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

1,00,000 in the case of a professional firm and Rs. 75,000 in the case of a non-professional firm, the limit is 60% of the “book-profit” in this slab. For the balance of the “book-profit” after these two slabs, the limit is 40% . 48.7 Under the provisions of section 40A(2) an Assessing Officer

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

1,00,000 in the case of a professional firm and Rs. 75,000 in the case of a non-professional firm, the limit is 60% of the “book-profit” in this slab. For the balance of the “book-profit” after these two slabs, the limit is 40% . 48.7 Under the provisions of section 40A(2) an Assessing Officer

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

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital is held by the entity referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) (whether singly or taken together); (iv) a company or corporation in which the State Government has the right to appoint the majority of the directors or to control the management or policy decisions, directly or indirectly, including by virtue of its shareholding or management rights

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital is held by the entity referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) (whether singly or taken together); (iv) a company or corporation in which the State Government has the right to appoint the majority of the directors or to control the management or policy decisions, directly or indirectly, including by virtue of its shareholding or management rights

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

194A on the interest paid by it to IRCON. 11. In view of the above, the Ld. CIT (A) directed the Ld. AO that the assessee cannot be considered as assessee-in-default u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) and consequently demand was deleted. 12. In the infrastructure industry, generally, the contract awarded to the JV is executed