DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

44A of the Act. 22. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records. The provisions of section 44 read as under : "44. Insurance business.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head `Interest on securities', `Income from house property', 'Capital gains

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

44A of the Act. 22. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records. The provisions of section 44 read as under : "44. Insurance business.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head `Interest on securities', `Income from house property', 'Capital gains

MRS. SHAILAJA G TANDEL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 4 , PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mrs. Shailaja G Tandel Ito Ward-4 401, Chandan Residency Panvel Raigad Plot No.33, Sector 44A, Vs. Nerul West, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 706 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Acppt6011K Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2022

44A, Vs. Nerul West, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 706 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. ACPPT6011K Assessee by : Shri Prakash Pandit, AR Revenue by : Shri Ajay Singh, DR Date of hearing: 05.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 05.09.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income

DCIT - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO .LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.3151 & 3149/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3(2)(2) M/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K Road, New India Assurance Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 87, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai -400 001

44A read with First Schedule and therefore, the provisions of section 115JB do not apply to the assessee’s case. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” 16. Respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding that the provisions of section 115JB have no application to the assessee. Ground No.6

ACIT - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blea.C.I.T. – 3(2)(2) V. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Room No. 674, 6Th Floor New India Building, 87 M.G. Road, Fort Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacn4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Farookh Irani Department By : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

gain falling under Section 10(38) of the Act, the exemption would be available. Thus, the question arising for our consideration in this appeal is different from the question on which the appeal of the GIC in ITX No. 201 of 2011 (Supra) was admitted. 9 Moreover, we find that this Court in General Insurance Corporation (supra) had also relied

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

capitalized. In any case, since the appellant is not a trader in securities and it has a different business of insurance and also that the said securities have been held as investment, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the premium under question is not allowable as business expenditure for the purpose of computation of taxable income.” 16. Similarly in A.Y.2005-06

ITO 28 (3)(4), MUMBAI vs. VASANT PURSHOTTAM THAKKAR, MUMBAI

Accordingly the cross objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Capital Gain‟ to the assessee without considering the merits of the case?" '. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the A.O. has rightly taken the share of the assessee at l/77th of the said property Village Kanjur, Bhandup, Kurla based

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

capitalized the\nassets as investments and mere fact that no depreciation is claimed cannot be the\nreason for holding that the assets are not part of fixed asset schedule to be taxed as\nCapital Gains.\n13. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee is in\nbusiness of banking and its part of its regular lending

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

capitalized the\nassets as investments and mere fact that no depreciation is claimed cannot be the\nreason for holding that the assets are not part of fixed asset schedule to be taxed as\nCapital Gains.\n\n13.\nWe heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee is in\nbusiness of banking and its part of its regular

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

capital markets for the benefit of policy holders, it proposed to provide for exemption of the profits earned by them on the sale investments. As corollary, it is proposed to provide that the losses incurred by General Insurance Corporation on the realization of investment shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the profits chargeable to tax. To achieve this

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

capital markets for the benefit of policy holders, it proposed to provide for exemption of the profits earned by them on the sale investments. As corollary, it is proposed to provide that the losses incurred by General Insurance Corporation on the realization of investment shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the profits chargeable to tax. To achieve this

M/S. CALYON BANK (FORMERLY CREDIT AGRICOLE INDUSUER),MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal, as filed by the department is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vivek Varma

44A. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. We order accordingly and direct the AO to consider the deductibility or otherwise of such amount by treating

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

44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In pursuance to ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 the said amalgamation the liability for Bonus, Pension, leave encashment, gratuity as appearing in the Books of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited as on August 12, 2010, of Rs. 7,348,424,124 was taken over by ICICI Bank Limited

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

44A(2) (b) of the Act, considering which there is no legal ground to hold the assessee company liable to furnish an Audit report u/s 92E of the Act. h. Without prejudice to the above, Assessee Company further states that the proposed levy of penalty provisions may themselves be "out of jurisdiction". It is emphasized that though assessment proceedings stand

ACIT, CIRCLE 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

44A of the Act is wrong having regard to the book of accounts. In our view, recording of satisfaction is a pre-requisite under the provisions of section 14A(2) before invoking the provisions of section 14A Rule 8D, which the Assessing Officer has failed to do. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision

ACIT, CIR- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

44A of the Act is wrong having regard to the book of accounts. In our view, recording of satisfaction is a pre-requisite under the provisions of section 14A(2) before invoking the provisions of section 14A Rule 8D, which the Assessing Officer has failed to do. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

gain from forex derivative contracts. (c) Without prejudice to the position adopted by the Appellant in the tax return, the learned AO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not apportioning the foreign exchange loss between the STP and SEZ units of the Appellant, though the foreign exchange loss can be said to be attributable to export activity carried from

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

gain from forex derivative contracts. (c) Without prejudice to the position adopted by the Appellant in the tax return, the learned AO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not apportioning the foreign exchange loss between the STP and SEZ units of the Appellant, though the foreign exchange loss can be said to be attributable to export activity carried from

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