THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

depreciation which was sought to be set off by the ld. AO while calculating the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. We find that in respect of Jojo Bera unit, the A.Y.2006-07 (i.e. year under appeal) is the first year of claim and hence it becomes the Initial Assessment Year, in terms of Section 80IA

M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP,MENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

depreciation allowable to the assessee keeping in mind the directions of the Tribunal in the earlier years, and as per law. 8. Accordingly, insofar as Ground of appeal nos. 1.1 to 1.3 are concerned, the same are allowed to the above extent.‖ 5. Since the facts of the issue in the present case are identical to one as decided

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

40A(9) of the Act will not be applicable since the provision is not towards contribution to any pension fund. We are of the view that sections 36(1)(iv) and 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

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT - 10 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

40A(9) of the Act and therefore the expenditure incurred has to be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, no interference is called for in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1 is dismissed. 61. Ground No. 2 relates to the deletion of the club expenditure. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

9 ITR 261, 274 (Cal.) : "It was as anything could be that the causa causans of the payment was what Mr. Sen had done on the instructions of his client (shareholder whose proxy he held) at the shareholders' meeting." It was on that footing that it was held that the receipt arose from the exercise by the assessee

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9, 10) : "That apart, section 80-IB of the Act does not use the expression 'profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking' as used in section 80HH of the Act but uses the expression 'profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-section' . . . A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference

ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9, 10) : "That apart, section 80-IB of the Act does not use the expression 'profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking' as used in section 80HH of the Act but uses the expression 'profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-section' . . . A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9, 10) : "That apart, section 80-IB of the Act does not use the expression 'profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking' as used in section 80HH of the Act but uses the expression 'profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-section' . . . A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference

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

Section 40A(9) of the Act (iv) Disallowance of INR 4,11,94,218/- relating to depreciation – sale of Bangalore

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

9 of section 40A of the Act. In the case under consideration, there is no doubt about genuineness of payment nor it is the case of the AO or FAA that Trust was not bonafide or the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the employees. Considering these facts of the case and following the judgment of State Bank

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

9 of section 40A of the Act. In the case under consideration, there is no doubt about genuineness of payment nor it is the case of the AO or FAA that Trust was not bonafide or the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the employees. Considering these facts of the case and following the judgment of State Bank

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

depreciation was claimed, are stated to have been purchased by the assessee against direct payment to the ITA. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 manufacturers. The assessee, as a part of its business, leased out these vehicles to its customers and thereafter, had no physical affiliation with the vehicles. In fact, lessees were registered as the owners of the vehicles

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

depreciation, business loss on oil bonds, and expenditure for share capital increase were decided with mixed results for both parties.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["40A(9

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench