MUMBAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to section 32 and 32A of the Act. The question before the Hon'ble Court was since, the claim of deduction was allowed without due verification whether the exercise of revisional jurisdiction was justified. After considering various 21 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. decisions, the Hon'ble High Court held

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

depreciation under the normal provision and book profit of ` 15,31,42,900 under section 115J. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made the following additions / disallowance:- Commission ` 34,13,738 Expenditure relating to issue ` 25,96,19,969 of fully convertible debenture Expenditure project not ` 10,29,703 materialized 3. As it appears, the aforesaid additions made

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

260A of the Act. The appeal of the Revenue was consequently dismissed. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed upon grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 5. We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant Revenue and Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 6. The assessment

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees medical benefit

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

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

depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees medical benefit

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dated 11th December, 2005, passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 240/PN/2004 and 273/PN/2004. The Assessment Year is 1999-2000. 4. The assessee-respondent before this Court is a company engaged in the business of mining and export of processed

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dated 11th December, 2005, passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 240/PN/2004 and 273/PN/2004. The Assessment Year is 1999-2000. 4. The assessee-respondent before this Court is a company engaged in the business of mining and export of processed

ITO 21(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PRITAMLAL J DOSHI, MUMBAI

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 18th April, 2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The impugned order dated 18 April 2001 relates to A.Y. 1996-97. 2. On 30 July 2004 this appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:— "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

PRITAMLAL J DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 18th April, 2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The impugned order dated 18 April 2001 relates to A.Y. 1996-97. 2. On 30 July 2004 this appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:— "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

260A of the Act. In the batch of cases, in Jindal Steel and Power one of the appeals was an appeal filed by the assessee namely ITC Limited against the judgment of the Division Bench ofthis court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus ITC Limited (supra) in CA No. 9920 of 2016 and this appeal was allowed

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

260A of the Act. In the batch of cases, in Jindal\nSteel and Power one of the appeals was an appeal filed by the assessee namely ITC\nLimited against the judgment of the Division Bench ofthis court in Commissioner of\nIncome Tax Versus ITC Limited (supra) in CA No. 9920 of 2016 and this appeal was\nallowed

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. “3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm

260A of the Act has been admitted by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1289 of 2012 dated 08.3.2013, wherein the issue of disallowance of capital loss, pertaining to receipt arising out of sale of research and development of capital assets, has been admitted and reframed substantial question of law vide order dated 08.3.2013, as under

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation) and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and Subsequently order u/s 143(3) r.w.s144C(1) of the Act determining the total income u/s 115JB of Rs. 90,99,78,259/- was passed on 28.01.2014. The Assessing Officer (A.O) after recording the reasons for reopening of assesseement has issued notice

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

depreciation thereon. 8 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore 4. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liabilities - Rs.6,20,70,000 A. Provision for Leave Fare Concession ("LFC")/ Home Travel Concession ("HTC")- Rx3,62,00,000 a) The learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the provision for LFC/HTC amounting

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

depreciation thereon.\n4. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liabilities\nRs.6,20,70,000\nA. Provision for Leave Fare Concession (\"LFC\")/ Home Travel Concession (\"HTC\")-\nRx3,62,00,000\na) The learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the provision for LFC/HTC\namounting to Rs.3,62,00,000.\nb) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation for A.Y.2012-13 M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Of Rs.24,292/-. However, in the assessment order the A.0. has not assessed the interest received from Tata Power of Rs.67,044/- which resulted in underassessment to the tune of Rs.67,044/-. In view of this, it appears that the assessment order u/s 143(3) passed by the AO is erroneous

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

depreciation allowance or any other allow ance under this Act has been computed. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section