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

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 from business and profession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade", certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

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 from business and profession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade", certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

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

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

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

36 months and, therefore, constitute a long term capital asset. Section 50 of the Act is a special provision for computing capital gain in respect of depreciable asset. It is a deeming provision which has a limited application for the purpose of prescribing the mode of computation of capital gain in case of depreciable asset. Section 50 have a limited

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

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT &\nMS PADMAVATHY S, AM\nI.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2014-15)\nI.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2015-16)\nI.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\nI.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18)\nI.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\nDy. Commissioner of Income\nTax, Circle-3(3)(1),\nRoom No. 609, Aayakar

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

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

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT &\nMS PADMAVATHY S, AM\nI.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2014-15)\nI.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2015-16)\nI.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\nI.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18)\nI.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\nDy. Commissioner of Income\nTax, Circle-3(3)(1),\nRoom No. 609, Aayakar

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

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.

1) and (2) of section 50. Section 50A also deals with assessment of depreciable asset that too as short-term capital gains and it actually supplements section 50. In our view, the purpose of section 50A is to enable the assessee to claim deduction of the written down value of the asset in respect of which depreciation was claimed

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) which is deem to be taxed as short term capital gain u/s 50, has been approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 44. Accordingly, we hold that capital gains arising out of the depreciable asset u/s 50 even though deem to be capital gain arising from transfer of a short term capital asset, that fiction

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 months) which is deem to be taxed as short term capital gain u/s 50,\nhas been approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.\n44. Accordingly, we hold that capital gains arising out of the depreciable asset u/s 50\neven though deem to be capital gain arising from transfer of a short term capital\nasset, that fiction

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

1) and (2) of section 50. Section\n50A also deals with assessment of depreciable asset that too as short-term capital gains\nand it actually supplements section 50. In our view, the purpose of section 50A is to enable\nthe assessee to claim deduction of the written down value of the asset in respect of which\ndepreciation was claimed