DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the\nassessee. During the assessment proceedings, from the perusal of the profit\nand loss account filed by the assessee for the year under consideration, it\nwas observed that the assessee has claimed depreciation

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

depreciation on investment amounting to ₹46,19,11,355/-. iv. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of ₹159,22,24,604/- by allowing the claim despite assessee not revising its return of income for new claim which is against the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Limited [284 ITR 323]. v. Excess

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

142(1), and any tax or refund was found due on the basis of such return after adjustment of tax deducted at source, any advance tax or any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, an intimation was to be sent without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2) to the assessee specifying the sum so payable

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

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

section 80HHC of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the profit earned by valuing finished goods is notional imaginary profit which could not be taxed. In view of the above, it is argued that appreciation in value of investments cannot be taken into account. The netting off of appreciation against the depreciation within a classification is therefore contrary

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

142(1) dated 23.08.2018 was issued by the concerned Circle. In response to the above notice, the assessee furnished the requisite information called for on the ITBA system. Relevant findings of the AO Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai is reproduced to address the additional ground no. 1 as under:- “3. The assessee is involved in the business of reselling cosmetics

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

142(1) r/w 143(2), which finally culminated in the assessment order dated 30th December culminated in the assessment order dated 30th December culminated in the assessment order dated 30th December 2008 under section 143(3). It is therefore e 2008 under section 143(3). It is therefore evident that vident that Respondent No. 1 after passing the original assessment

ROSY BLUE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 46, (NOW DCIT CENT. CIR. 8(3)), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 4984/Mum/2016 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 1608/09, Prasad Chambers, Income Tax, Opera House Central Circle-46, Mumbai फनाभ/ (Now Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Vs. Circle 8(3), Mumbai) (अऩीराथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामीरेखासिं./Pan No. Aaccr 2413 B आमकयअऩीरसिं./ Ita No. 5829/Mum/2016 (ननधाायणवषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-46, Mumbai 1608/09, Prasad Chambers, फनाभ/ (Now Deputy Commissioner Of Opera House Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Vs. Mumbai) (अऩीराथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent)

1) of the Act, the audit was directed under section 142(2A) of the Act obviously to obtain extension of time for framing the assessment. The case of the assessee finds from the decision of Calcutta High court in the cast of West Bengal State co-operative Bank Ltd. V. JCIT (2004) 267 ITR 345 (Calcutta). The Hon'ble High

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31(1) of the Act is no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. 9.16 In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31(1) of the Act is no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. 9.16 In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31(1) of the Act is no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. 9.16 In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31(1) of the Act is no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. 9.16 In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the\nassessee. During the assessment proceedings, from the perusal of the profit\nand loss account filed by the assessee for the year under consideration, it\nwas observed that the assessee has claimed depreciation

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee.\nDuring the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal