STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

6 ABA is to be allowed on the total outstanding advances at the end of each month considering the opening balances. Since other issues arising in the appeals are still pending adjudication, therefore, we send the matter back to the Division Bench for disposing of the appeals in the above terms." State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore

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 is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

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 is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

iii) There was no goodwill in seller's books and no claim of depreciation by the sellers on goodwill depreciation by the sellers on goodwill Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. 13 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. (iv) Lumpsum consideration paid by the assessee for acquiring the (iv) Lumpsum consideration paid by the for acquiring the undertakings was allocated

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

6. In the present case, the High Court as well as the ITAT have observed and held that for claiming the so observed and held that for claiming the so-called exemption relief under called exemption relief under section 10B (8) of the IT Act, furnishing the declaration to the as section 10B (8) of the IT Act, furnishing

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

6. Grant of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Rs.12,23,01,710 6.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. CIT erred in holding that the Assessing Officer in the assessment ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 order had allowed excess deduction under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs.12

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

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

depreciation on goodwill are:- i. In paragraph number five of the remand report dated 6/12/2017 submitted by the learned assessing officer wherein it was stated that that there was not sufficient material available on record for the quantification of goodwill. ii. Further proviso 6 to section 32 (1) of the act prohibits the deduction. iii

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

depreciation on goodwill are:- i. In paragraph number five of the remand report dated 6/12/2017 submitted by the learned assessing officer wherein it was stated that that there was not sufficient material available on record for the quantification of goodwill. ii. Further proviso 6 to section 32 (1) of the act prohibits the deduction. iii

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

6 aggregating Rs. 41.50 crore. 32. Provision for Leave Travel and Home Travel Concession represents provision towards actual payments to be made by the assessee to its employees for the travel costs incurred by them such as rail fare, air fare, etc. on availment of the leave the employees are entitled to. It is not towards any encashment of leave

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM USA INC.,TEXAS vs. DCIT (IT) 4 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth ()

iii) the use of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property. 4.8 Thus consideration for the use of a process is covered within the ambit of the definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) further clarifies the meaning

ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MOBIAPPS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(2)(4), M/S Mobiapps India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.542, 5Th Floor, 7/10, Borawala Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaccm3613L

iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80-I or section 80-IA or section 80-IB or section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80-I or section 80-IA or section 80-IB or section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80-I or section 80-IA or section 80-IB or section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

iii. The revenue has not been able to produce the copy of approval from the Jt.C.I.T. for invocation of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Act. However,at no point of time, it has been conceded that approval has not been taken from the Jt.CI.T. if at all the Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) has been

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

iii) of Rs.12,94,13,414 and reduce the total income accordingly. ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 3 1A. Without prejudice to Ground no. 1 above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, assuming without accepting that the contention of the Appellant Bank is not acceptable, in such case

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

iii) of Rs.12,94,13,414 and reduce the total income accordingly. ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 3 1A. Without prejudice to Ground no. 1 above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, assuming without accepting that the contention of the Appellant Bank is not acceptable, in such case

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