ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANGLI VAIBHAV CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

L. Vajani Date Conclusion of hearing : 09.05.2024 Pronouncement of order : 22.05.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are 3 appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018- 19 and 2020-2021 preferred by the Revenue against three separate orders, each dated 23/08/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

SANGAM SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADITNAGARI,NAVI MUMBAI, THANE vs. MUMBAI-W-91, VASHI NAVIMUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sangam Sahakari Patpedhi Mumbai-W-91, Maryaditnagari, Navi Mumbai, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Office No. 227, Central Facility Vs. Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Building, 3Rd Floor, Sector-19, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Aacas 6296 B Appellant Respondent

l a consequence, the investments were shown as liabilities, as they iabilities, as they represented the money belonging to the members. The income derived represented the money belonging to the members. The income derived represented the money belonging to the members. The income derived from the investments made by retaining the from the investments made by retaining the monies belonging

SADHANA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

L imited itself rendered on 08th February 2010, in Tot- gar's Co-operative Sale Soci ety Limited v. ITO , reported in MANU/SC/0095/2010: (2010) 322 ITR 283 SC : ( 2010) 3 SCC 223 for the preceding years, namely Assessment Years 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 (except Assessment Year 1995-1996) holding that such interest income earned by the assessee was taxable

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

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalcidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Ground Floor, Cidco Bhavan, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Pan:Aaaac2203N ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 28(1) (3)/ Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

L Account held that since the Assessee had not, vide its replies, given any response to the request for details regarding TDS compliance, hence the same was added back to the taxable income and resultantly an addition of Rs. 4, 81,264/- was made. vi) The Ld. Assessing Officer on the issue of Form 3CD filed by the Assessee

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

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all\nbanks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.\n38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

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

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all\nbanks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.\n\n38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

L Account which refers to operating expenses, we find two distinct heads of expenditure, namely, "Provision for Non-performing Assets" and "Bad Debts/Advances Written Off". It is for the appellant(s) to explain the difference between the two to the Assessing Officer. Which of the two items will constitute expenditure under the Income-tax Act has to be decided according

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

L Account which\nrefers to operating expenses, we find two distinct heads of expenditure, namely,\n\"Provision for Non-performing Assets\" and \"Bad Debts/Advances Written Off\". It is\nfor the appellant(s) to explain the difference between the two to the Assessing Officer.\nWhich of the two items will constitute expenditure under the Income-tax Act has to be\ndecided

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

Section 115TA of the Act\nprovides for different rates for different Assessees, which\nsubstantiates that the tax paid by trust u/s 115TA of the Act is the\ntax paid on behalf of the Assessee. The taxability in the hands of\nthe Securitisation trust.\nThus, the interest income of the Assessee, though not taxed in the\nhands of the Assessee (investor

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

gains from business and\nprofession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are\nheld as „stock-in-trade, certain dividend is also earned, though\nincidentally, which is also an income. However by virtue of Section 10(34)\nof the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income\nand is exempt from

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

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

L Account. 5.5 Therefore, it is evident that all expenses connected with the exempt income have to be disallowed under section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income