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 from business and profession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade", certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

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

9 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India advances. It says that there are no such words in the proviso which indicates that the proviso apply only to rural advances. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Firstly, CBDT itself has recognized the position that

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

9 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India advances. It says that there are no such words in the proviso which indicates that the proviso apply only to rural advances. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Firstly, CBDT itself has recognized the position that

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

9 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India advances. It says that there are no such words in the proviso which indicates that the proviso apply only to rural advances. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Firstly, CBDT itself has recognized the position that

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

9 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India advances. It says that there are no such words in the proviso which indicates that the proviso apply only to rural advances. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Firstly, CBDT itself has recognized the position that

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

9, 2020 for AY 2014-15 which could be rectified vide an order under section 154 of the Act and is not a subject matter of review under section 263 of the Act. GENERAL 10. The order of the Pr. CIT should be suitably modified by granting the aforesaid proper and consequential reliefs to the Appellant. 11. The Appellant craves

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

VII of Finance (No.2) Act 2004 comes into force. If such conditions are not fulfilled, then exemption is not given. Thus, the income contemplated in section 10(38) is only a part of the source of capital gain on shares and only a limited portion of source is treated as exempt and not the entire capital gain (on sale

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139. Provided that where

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 12. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the claim made by the assessee is on account

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

capital expenditure. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted before the AO that it has debited Rs.8,42,189/- as EDP expenses and included it in ‘Miscellaneous Expenses’. The AO following the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arawali Constructions (P) Ltd. 259 ITR 30 (Raj) disallowed the said

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

capital expenditure. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted before the AO that it has debited Rs.8,42,189/- as EDP expenses and included it in ‘Miscellaneous Expenses’. The AO following the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arawali Constructions (P) Ltd. 259 ITR 30 (Raj) disallowed the said

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139. Provided that where

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

9. Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 54 of I T Act for Investment in new residential house outside India In this case, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of I T Act on the entire Capital Gain arrived by investing in purchase of new residential house at Michigan, USA. The claim of the assessee is disallowed

HAZEL MERCANTILE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

9,85,980/-. ii. Search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) conducted on Veritas Group and Shri Nitin Kumar Dindayal Didwania, promoter of the group along with the family members on 10th September, 2015. iii. Assessee and his family engaged in the business of trading and distribution of chemicals. The assessee

HAZEL MERCANTILE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

9,85,980/-. ii. Search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) conducted on Veritas Group and Shri Nitin Kumar Dindayal Didwania, promoter of the group along with the family members on 10th September, 2015. iii. Assessee and his family engaged in the business of trading and distribution of chemicals. The assessee

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NITI NITINKUMAR DIDWANIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

9,85,980/-. ii. Search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) conducted on Veritas Group and Shri Nitin Kumar Dindayal Didwania, promoter of the group along with the family members on 10th September, 2015. iii. Assessee and his family engaged in the business of trading and distribution of chemicals. The assessee