SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

section. According to him, it is According to him, it is not the case that particular issue of revision has not been not the case that particular issue of revision has not been not the case that particular issue of revision has not been confronted to the assessee confronted to the assessee but added in the final revision

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

capital gains' 15% (which add up to around 15.625% of the gains even when there is a 25% appreciation in the value of an of the gains even when there is a 25% appreciation in the value of an of the gains even when there is a 25% appreciation in the value of an equity share).” 7.4 We find that

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and\nspells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in\ncertain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which\napply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise\nallowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If\nwe consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with\nand enact different conditions

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

capital gains and income from other sources. The expenses claimed by the assessee are rejected under the head income from business and it is allowed under the head income from the house properties, the net result would be the same. That is, the AO Page No.| 15 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO.1128/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2003-04) ITA.NO

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

capital gains and income from other sources. The expenses claimed by the assessee are rejected under the head income from business and it is allowed under the head income from the house properties, the net result would be the same. That is, the AO Page No.| 15 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO.1128/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2003-04) ITA.NO

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021 & ITA No. 1394-1396/Mum/2020

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RUBBERWALA REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to\n2021-22 stands allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2018-19\nstands dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on this ...

capital company\nas referred to in clause (23FB)of section 10.\"\n4.8 Bare reading of the provision makes it abundantly clear that an\nassessee firm is required to substantiate only the first source of receipt\nin relation to advance/loan/deposit and nothing more. The additional\nburden laid down in the proviso to Section 68 of the Act only applied\nto 'share

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

3/- paid by\nthe assessee was to be amortized over the\nremaining period of three years. The basis behind\nthis Rule, in our humble understanding, is to value\nthe investment only at its face value which is what\nthe assessee would get at the end of the period\nand any excess paid over the face value while\nacquiring the security

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

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to other provisions, since fiction created by the \nlegislature has to be confined to the purpose to which it is created. Also, \nthat section 54E does not make any distinction between depreciable \nassets