STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Large Tax Payer Unit-Bangalore [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.02.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The issues contended

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

e revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under section under section 139(1) and cannot transform

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

13,06,766 Total value of Goodwill eligible for depreciation for AY Total value of Goodwill eligible for depreciation for AY 2009-10 Less: Depreciation @ 25% for the AY under (21,28,26,691) Less: Depreciation @ 25% for the AY under Less: Depreciation @ 25% for the AY under consideration Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. 8 Thermo Fisher Scientific India

ITO (E) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CANCER AID & RESEARCH FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Cancer Aid & Research (Exemption)-1(2), Foundation, बनाम/ Room No.501, 5Th Floor, 10Th Floor, Bridge View, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, 16 Hansraj Lane, Byculla, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400027 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatc3013B

1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2((g) r.w.s. 13(3)(cc) of the Act., hence the A.O. has rightly disallowed the exemption u/s 11 of the Act vide orders of assessment dated 28.12.2011 and he relied upon the orders of the A.O.. 10. On the other hand, the assessee trust submitted that the BMW car is purchased

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation on value of investments and re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), in respect of provisions of bad debts, as well as bad debt written off. 4. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT-2, Mumbai has issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to explain

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

E R PER BENCH The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by either parties challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since

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

13 which is reproduced as under: We have considered the matter. We agree with the contention of the assessee that only prescribed items can be disallowed under section 43B of the Act. The items that have been disallowed by the AO being provision 35 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 made towards employee benefits, silver