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

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

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

depreciation u/s.\n32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly.\n46. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly submits that, as on now, the issue\nis covered, against the assessee, by decisions of the coordinate benches, and\nhe does not, therefore, press the issue any further. Obviously, however, he\nretains his right to carry the matter

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

vi) in relation to a return furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2018; (b) the tax , interest and fee, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the total income computed under clause (a); (c) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee shall be determined

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 of investment. This amount was allowed by the learned Assessing Officer without examining the issue. iv. With respect to excess deduction under Section 36(1) (viia) of ₹159,22,24,604/- stating that in the revised return assessee has claimed the deduction only of ₹1,312,95,39,888/-, however in the assessment order the learned Assessing Officer

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à-vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial valuation ought

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à-vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial valuation ought

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on appreciation in the value of securities held as available for sale by treating the same for trading category. So ground No.6 is determined in favour of the assessee. Grounds No.7.1 & 7.2 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 30. The AO by invoking the provisions contained under section 41(iv) of the Act taxed the recovery of bad debts

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on appreciation in the value of securities held as available for sale by treating the same for trading category. So ground No.6 is determined in favour of the assessee. Grounds No.7.1 & 7.2 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 30. The AO by invoking the provisions contained under section 41(iv) of the Act taxed the recovery of bad debts

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT (OSD)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2014-15

Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in accordance with the findings/observations given in its order; (iii) make adjustment to book profits in respect of profit of foreign branches and provisions in accordance with the findings/observations in its order. 15 Bank of India 15. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

section 36(1)(viia)(b) in terms of the observations above.” Respectfully,following the above order of the Tribunal,effective ground of appeal is decided against the AO. ITA/3592/Mum/2013(AY.2009-10): 10.First ground of appeal,filed by the assessee,is about disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.r.8D (2) (ii)of the Rules. Following our order for the last AY.Ground no.1 is decided

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

depreciation on leased assets solely to the income from\nleasing\nThe AO has allocated interest expenditure (other than foreign currency\nborrowings) to income from housing business and other income in the ratio of 64.99 :\n35.01.\nThe AO has allocated other expenses to income from housing business and other\nincome in the ratio of 80:20.\n11.\nThe Assessing Officer accordingly

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

vi) Processing administrative fees and commitment charges\n2.4 The Id. CIT(A) erred in allocating expenses erroneously, arbitrarily and on\nincorrect assumptions, for the purpose of computing the profits eligible for\ndeduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act.\nHe erred in not allocating expenses in the proportion of gross receipts from\nthe activity of housing finance

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation on motor car.” 3. The first issue arising in present appeal is pertaining to disallowance of Rs.32,140, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section

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

RISHABH METALS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CPC, DCIT -CIR 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerishabh Metals & Chemicals V. Dcit-Circle -1(3)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 4Th Floor, Eross Theatre Bldg Mumbai - 400020 Jt Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr2214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

depreciation). Each of these deductions has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions would render the claim vulnerable

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

vi)\ninterest on inter-corporate deposits\ninterest on deposits and investments\ninterest on investment application amounts, discount on Treasury\nBills and Commercial paper\nProfit on sale / redemption of debentures / securities\nIncidental charges\nProcessing administrative fees and commitment charges\n2.4 The Id. CIT(A) erred in allocating expenses erroneously, arbitrarily and on\nincorrect assumptions, for the purpose of computing the profits

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

vi)\ninterest on inter-corporate deposits\ninterest on deposits and investments\ninterest on investment application amounts, discount on Treasury\nBills and Commercial paper\nProfit on sale / redemption of debentures / securities\nIncidental charges\nProcessing administrative fees and commitment charges\n2.4 The Id. CIT(A) erred in allocating expenses erroneously, arbitrarily and on\nincorrect assumptions, for the purpose of computing the profits