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

viii).\nWith regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial\nrelief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs.\n50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the\namortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to\nMMRDA. Both the assessee

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

viii).\nWith regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial\nrelief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs.\n50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the\namortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to\nMMRDA. Both the assessee

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

viii).\nWith regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial\nrelief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs.\n50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the\namortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to\nMMRDA. Both 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

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

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

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.

VIII, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax, interest or fee; (d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the assessee specifying the Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee under clause (c); and (e) the amount

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 36(1)(viii) had segregated the income and the expenses under 3 categories, i.e. income from housing finance, income from capital gains

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

capital gain. viii. Excess allowances of deduction of ₹250,03,69,520/- under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act, where

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

viii) Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) for AY. 2012-13 of Rs.3,77,66,337/- was carried forward and adjusted in this year as shown in column/item no. (x). And at column/item (xii) total loss carried forward to future year is shown as of Rs.1,94,00,000/-. According to Ld. Counsel on this issue the AO has re-opened

KOKAN MERCANTILA CO OP BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-20(2) , MUMBAI

In the result we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct to allow the deduction u/s

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Harbour Crest, 1St Floor, Mazagaon, Mumbai-400010. Pan: Aaaak2527P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-20(2), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.12.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

36(1) (viii) for sake of clarity about the provisions with reference to claim made by the assessee we are reproducing herein below the provisions of sec.36 (1) (viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a specified entity, an amount not exceeding twenty per cent of the profits derived from eligible business computed under the head

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

viii) appearing under the said Explanation. The capital gain on transfer under consideration is certainly not amongst the items which can be reduced in computing the book profit in terms of section 115JB because the same does not find any specific mention in the items mentioned in Explanation 1 sub-section (2) of section 115JB. He observed that assessee also

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

1)(vii) of the Act, which findings have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 31. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee argued that this issue has also been decided by remitting the same back to the AO in assessee’s 37 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India own case for A.Y. 2004-05 (supra

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

1)(vii) of the Act, which findings have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 31. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee argued that this issue has also been decided by remitting the same back to the AO in assessee’s 37 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India own case for A.Y. 2004-05 (supra

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

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

gains on trading aggregating to Rs.2056,92,45,836 was excluded from the total business income computed at Rs.7863,19,95,380 and the balance of Rs.5806,27,49,544 was considered as business income from long term finance eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii). 3.2 As per the show cause notice your Honour's first observation

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

section in 1998, applies to the issue at hand since the amendment had no impact on the condition of creation of reserve. 14. In view of the above, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction on account of creation of special reserve of Rs.120 crores u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act since the said reserve