ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

capital gain. Accordingly, the provision of section 56(1) cannot be resorted to. 26. After Referring to Section 56(2)(viia

LUPIN INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ZYMA LABORATORIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

section 56 to also include within its ambit transactions undertaken in shares of a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested) either for inadequate consideration or without consideration where the recipient is a firm or a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested).\"\n31. A combined reading of the provisions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMAGRA WEALTHMAX PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

56(2)(viia) is applicable only till 31.03.2017. 025. The appellant has received asset worth Rs. 149.29 Crore (on result of amalgamation) without consideration and ld. AO concluded that the said amount should be taxed u/s 28(iv) of the Act. 026. Provision of section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act) which are as under

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

56, Mumbai filed by the Bank and hence do not come within the purview of revision under section 263. We reiterate that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial and the proceedings under section 263 ought to be dropped.” ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 07. The learned PCIT after considering

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 5 3 On the issue of sale of Shares of 110,95,81,200 71,64,92,560 QNPL to SIPL: TPO concluded that the sale consideration charged from the AE was less than the arm’s length price of shares sold. TPO recomputed capital gains

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

gained acquire Acquired RFAPL y for in Rs. d indirectly acquired acquisiti indirect through @483 Rs. per on of control holding share such Shares companie Shares of s of RFAPL RFAPL in Rs. Nakul 72,215 3,48,79,845 50,000 3,48,29,845 Markhe dkar Total

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

gained acquire Acquired RFAPL y for in Rs. d indirectly acquired acquisiti indirect through @483 Rs. per on of control holding share such Shares companie Shares of s of RFAPL RFAPL in Rs. Nakul 72,215 3,48,79,845 50,000 3,48,29,845 Markhe dkar Total

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 of Business & Profession', deductions of large amounts under different sections are being allowed by the Assessing Officers without proper verification, leading to substantial loss of revenue. It is, therefore, necessary that assessments in the cases of banks are completed with due care and after proper verification. In particular, deductions under the provisions referred to ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023

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 of Business & Profession', deductions of large amounts under different sections are being allowed by the Assessing Officers without proper verification, leading to substantial loss of revenue. It is, therefore, necessary that assessments in the cases of banks are completed with due care and after proper verification. In particular, deductions under the provisions referred to ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023

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

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

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

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

56 of the Act provides that\nincome by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income-tax\nunder the head \"Income from Other Sources\", if, the income is not\nchargeable to income-tax under the head \"Profits and Gains of Business\nand Profession\".\n3. The matter has been examined in light of the judicial decisions on this\nissue

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

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

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

56 of the Act provides that\nincome by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income-tax\nunder the head "Income from Other Sources", if, the income is not\nchargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and Gains of Business\nand Profession".\n\n3. The matter has been examined in light of the judicial decisions on this

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

viia)- The profits and gains of any business of banking(including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members.” “ii) The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (BR ACT, 1949): The relevant provisions of the BR Act, 1949 are extracted as under. Section 3 of the said Act as it stood at the relevant point of time

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

viia)- The profits and gains of any business of banking(including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members.” “ii) The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (BR ACT, 1949): The relevant provisions of the BR Act, 1949 are extracted as under. Section 3 of the said Act as it stood at the relevant point of time

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

viia)- The profits and gains of any business of banking(including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members.” “ii) The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (BR ACT, 1949): The relevant provisions of the BR Act, 1949 are extracted as under. Section 3 of the said Act as it stood at the relevant point of time