DCIT-2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

delay in making such Cross Objection.” 3. When this was pointed out to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he objected to condonation but could not give any reason for objection. After hearing both the sides, we feel that this is a fit case for condonation because the assessee inadvertently and under bonafide belief could not file cross objection even though

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay of 372 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds/additional grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal. 8. It is admitted position that the Assessee had returned loss for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. It has not been disputed by the Assessee that as per Section 36(1)(viia

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. It was pointed out that the Revenue has not assailed the alternative and independent findings of the learned CIT(A), namely, (i) that the assessee was engaged in the business of financing and money lending, and (ii) that the write-off was allowable as a business loss under section 28 read

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

delay of 372 days\nin filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to\nadjudicate the grounds/additional grounds raised by the Assessee in\nthe present appeal.\n8. It is admitted position that the Assessee had returned loss for the\n Assessment Year 2019-2020. It has not been disputed by the\nAssessee that as per Section 36(1)(viia

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing appeal.” B. The Ld.AR submitted that the above grounds are related to the main grounds raised in form 36 and that no new records needs to be looked into for disposing off the issue raised herein. The Ld.DR though could not object to the submissions of the assessee did not support the admission of additional

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule VII

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from Section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule VII

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

condonation of delay has to be treated as attributable to the assessee while determining the eligible interest in terms of section 244A(2)of the Act.In other words,if an assessee is responsible for the delay in the finalisation of the proceedings on the basis of which he becomes entitled to the refund, then the period of delay

SMT RASHMI RAMESH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, she contacted tax professional who advised her to file appeal before the Tribunal. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the preset appeal came to be filed after a delay of more than 32 months. 3.2. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1)(vii) of the Act or not is debatable. Further, the above claim for deductions as made by the applicant was by following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Vithaldas Dhanjibhai (supra). Thus, a debatable issue. Therefore, the same could not have been disallowed by way of an intimation under section

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1)(vii) of the Act or not is debatable. Further, the above claim for deductions as made by the applicant was by following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Vithaldas Dhanjibhai (supra). Thus, a debatable issue. Therefore, the same could not have been disallowed by way of an intimation under section

ORANATE MULTI MODAL CARRIERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional/preliminary ground of appeal raised

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhorient Multimodal Carriers Pvt. Ito-2(2)(4), Ltd., Orient House, 4Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi Merzban Path, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaaco0797R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Heena Sheth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

36(1)(vii). The assessee also furnished the copy of assessment order for AY 2006-07 passed under section143(3) dated 23.12.2008. The assessee also raised objection before ld CIT(A) that the notice under section 148 is invalid. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer on almost similar lines. Thus, further aggrieved by the order

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

36(1)(vii) of the Act if an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the Profit & Loss account and credits the asset account like sundry debtors account it would constitute a write–off of an actual debt. Following the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed similar view in case of Vijay Bank (supra). It appears from

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions