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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vi) The Parties withdraw all allegations made in the proceedings filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Save and except the captioned proceedings the Parties confirm that no other proceedings have been filed by the Parties against the other. “xii) The Plaintiff hereby agrees and confirms that simultaneously

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

capital amounting to Rs. 14, 61,710/- and entrance fees and subscriptions paid at clubs amounting to Rs. 1,18,95,580/-. These claims of the assessee were duly reported by the Tax Auditor in his Tax Audit Report vide clause 21(a) and 21(b). In the given situation clause (iv) of section 143(1

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

gains have\nbeen assessed to the maximum marginal rate and even if considered as business income,\nthe tax effect would be the same. Consequently, there could be no reasonable basis to\nhave a belief that there is any escapement of Income. [Para 8]\nIn the circumstances, the impugned notice issued under section 148 as well as the\nimpugned order rejecting

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

gains have\nbeen assessed to the maximum marginal rate and even if considered as business income,\nthe tax effect would be the same. Consequently, there could be no reasonable basis to\nhave a belief that there is any escapement of Income. [Para 8]\nIn the circumstances, the impugned notice issued under section 148 as well as the\nimpugned order rejecting

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

vi. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act of ₹138,52,06,494/- which should have been restricted to ₹961,47,93,509/- being 20% of allowable deduction. vii. Excess allowances of long-term capital loss on sale of shares of foreign entity of Rs 502,62,44,256/- without examining the fact of application

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gain and dividend) at 64.99:35.01. The way in which the\nAO has allocated various expenses is described as under:\nIn the computation of income from business eligible for deduction under section\n36(1)(viii) of the Act, the AO has reduced the entire interest on foreign currency\nborrowings and provision for contingencies as expenditure incurred for earning

DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

Capital Gains is offered by the income under the head Capital Gains is offered by the income under the head Capital Gains is offered by the Assessee in its COI (Pg. no. 60 of FPB). Any exempt income Assessee in its COI (Pg. no. 60 of FPB). Any exempt income Assessee

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

Capital Gains is offered by the income under the head Capital Gains is offered by the income under the head Capital Gains is offered by the Assessee in its COI (Pg. no. 60 of FPB). Any exempt income Assessee in its COI (Pg. no. 60 of FPB). Any exempt income Assessee