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

depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing the exclusion of profits of branches in countries with whom India has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) namely United Kingdom

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

depreciation u/s. 32 of the\nAct on the same and reduce the total income accordingly.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nACIT has erred in disallowing the exclusion of profits of branches in countries\nwith whom India has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement\n(DTAA) namely United Kingdom

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

251)\n(Bangalore ITAT)\n(iii) Sling Media (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2022] (194 ITD 1) (Banglore ITAT)\n(iv) Infinera India (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT JCIT [2022] (194 ITD 463)\n(Bangalore ITAT)\n(v) DCIT Vs. M/s. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co.\nLtd (ITA No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019) (Kolkata ITAT)\n(vi) M/s. Naik Seafoods

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

251)\n(Bangalore ITAT)\n(iii) Sling Media (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2022] (194 ITD 1) (Banglore ITAT)\n(iv) Infinera India (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT JCIT [2022] (194 ITD 463)\n(Bangalore ITAT)\n(v) DCIT Vs. M/s. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co.\nLtd (ITA No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019) (Kolkata ITAT)\n(vi) M/s. Naik Seafoods

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act is held to be statutory allowance and cannot be considered as an ‘expenditure’ as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act for disallowance and on the same analogy interest paid on partner capital by the partnership firm cannot be considered as an expenditure u/s 14A of the Act is again misconceived as we have already

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act is held to be statutory allowance and cannot be considered as an ‘expenditure’ as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act for disallowance and on the same analogy interest paid on partner capital by the partnership firm cannot be considered as an expenditure u/s 14A of the Act is again misconceived as we have already

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of setting of Infrastructure facilities for evacuation of power generator through power projects. Search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the „Act‟ was carried

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of setting of Infrastructure facilities for evacuation of power generator through power projects. Search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the „Act‟ was carried

WIND WORLD INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of setting of Infrastructure facilities for evacuation of power generator through power projects. Search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the „Act‟ was carried

J.N INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of setting of Infrastructure facilities for evacuation of power generator through power projects. Search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the „Act‟ was carried

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8.\nIn the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\nTotal Expenses\nProfit Before Tax\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n1,225,179\n3,632,144\n6,748,846\n1,926,284\n3,587,016\n13,454,112,251\n76.76\n83.30

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\nTotal Expenses\nProfit Before Tax\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n1,225,179\n3,632,144\n6,748,846\n1,926,284\n3,587,016\n13,454,112,251\n76.76\n83.30

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

251). He, accordingly, made addition of Rs. 2,82,51,259/- 3.6. The AO, while computing the book profits u/s 115JB, made the addition of Rs. 2,82,51,260/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A as per P&L A/c. 3.7. In course of assessment proceedings the AO further noticed that in respect of dividend income from mutual funds

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

depreciation and other expenses incurred on car is bad in law as the addition is not based on the material found during the course of search and that it pertained to non-abated assessment year. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not determining the income from short term capital gains at Rs.10