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

gains of business or profession.\"\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"relevant assessment\nyears\" means the five consecutive assessment years commencing on or after\nthe 1st day of April, 2000 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2005;”\n35. Thus, as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the\nprovision

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

gains of business or profession.\"\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"relevant assessment\nyears\" means the five consecutive assessment years commencing on or after\nthe 1st day of April, 2000 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2005;”\n35. Thus, as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the\nprovision

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

Gains of Business & Profession', deductions of large amounts under different sections are being allowed by the Assessing Officers without proper verification, leading to substantial loss of revenue. It is, therefore, necessary that assessments in the cases of banks are completed with due care and after proper verification. In particular, deductions under the provisions referred to ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023

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

Gains of Business & Profession', deductions of large amounts under different sections are being allowed by the Assessing Officers without proper verification, leading to substantial loss of revenue. It is, therefore, necessary that assessments in the cases of banks are completed with due care and after proper verification. In particular, deductions under the provisions referred to ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

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

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

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

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

ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii) Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to\n- Rs.84,46,95,341/-\nRs.60,79,783/-\n- Rs.5,50,86,192/-\nRs.71,75,94,432/-\n4.\nAggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave\nrelief to the assessee with respect

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

ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts

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

ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii) Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to\n- Rs.84,46,95,341/-\nRs.60,79,783/-\n- Rs.5,50,86,192/-\nRs.71,75,94,432/-\n4.\nAggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave\nrelief to the assessee with respect

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

ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts

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

ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii) Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to\n\n- Rs.84,46,95,341/-\n- Rs.60,79,783/-\n- Rs.5,50,86,192/-\nRs.71,75,94,432/-\n\n4.\nAggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave\nrelief to the assessee

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

ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts

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

ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

36 months. So taxability is on transfer of long term capital asset. 20. Normally capital gain is required to be computed according to the provisions contain in sections 48 & 49 of the Act. But section 50 by deeming fiction amends the mode of computation of capital gain and cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition. Section provides that where

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

Capital Pharma v. ITO (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 34/2013); • DCIT v. Ananda Marakala (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 1584/2012); • Arcadia Share and Stock Brokers ITA 1871/Mum/2013; • S.S. Networks vs. ITO (ITAT Hyd) (ITA No.478/2013), 8. Addition on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C- Rs. 6,98,56,399 a) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

36 months. So taxability is on transfer of long term capital asset. 20. Normally capital gain is required to be computed according to the provisions contain in sections 48 & 49 of the Act. But section 50 by deeming fiction amends the mode of computation of capital gain and cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition. Section provides that where

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

36\nmonths. So taxability is on transfer of long term capital asset.\n20. Normally capital gain is required to be computed according to the provisions\ncontain in sections 48 & 49 of the Act. But section 50 by deeming fiction amends the\nmode of computation of capital gain and cost with reference to certain modes of\nacquisition. Section provides that where

FIDELITY SALEM STREET TRUST FIDELITY SAI EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36,135) Nil Net Short-Term Capital Gains 1,04,65,506 1,77,58,894 Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 29/01/2025, holding that STCG of INR.1,04,65,506/- was taxable at the rate of 15% under Section 115AD read with Section 111A of the Act and the balance amount of INR.1

EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36,135) Nil Net Short-Term Capital Gains 1,04,65,506 1,77,58,894 Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 29/01/2025, holding that STCG of INR.1,04,65,506/- was taxable at the rate of 15% under Section 115AD read with Section 111A of the Act and the balance amount of INR.1