SUKHSAGAR CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 32(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly exclude the same net of the proportional expenditure attributable to the earning of interest income.\n14. Thus, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the same terms

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the Assessee in respect of interest income earned from investment with Cooperative Banks. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. As a result, grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed.\n7. As the assessee has admittedly earned part

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-26(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. VENKATESH PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income from co- operative banks aggregating to INR 2,51,81,589/- [INR 2,40,79,087/- (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18) + INR 11,02,502]. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, Ground No.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-26(1),MUMBAI, BANDRA, MUMBAI vs. VENKATESH PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income from co- operative banks aggregating to INR 2,51,81,589/- [INR 2,40,79,087/- (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18) + INR 11,02,502]. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, Ground No.1

JANPRIYA SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 27 1, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

depreciation disallowed by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Ground No.1-2 raised by the assessee is on disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P

ASST CIT CEN CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE BHARAT SAHAKARI BANK LTD, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act to ` 3,73,81,195. Accordingly, he determined the total income at ` 4,78,05,273. Being aggrieved with the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the validity of re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act as well as correctness of various disallowances

TECHNOPOLIS PREMISES CO-OP.SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 25 , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodtechnopolis Premises Co-Operative Society Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-25, Limited, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Room No. 241, 2Nd Floor, G-Block, Mahakali Caves Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai 400 093. Mumbai – 400 051

section (other than 80P) including in Chapter VI-A; (ii) deduction claimed, if any, under Sec. 10AA; and (iii) deduction claimed, if any, under Sec. 35AD as reduced by the amount of depreciation

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

80P. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the deduction must first be allowed under section 80-I and then only the gross total income as computed under the provisions of the Act before allowing deductions under Chapter VI-A should be worked out, cannot be accepted. As noticed earlier section 80A provides that the deductions shall

ITO - 17(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANNASAHEB PATIL MATHADI KAMGAR SHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 460 To 463/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2012-13 & 2009-10) बिधम/ Ito-17(1)(1) M/S. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Room No.106, 1St Floor, G- Kamgar Shakari Patpedhi Vs. Block, Kautilya Bhavan, Maryadit Jivraj Bhanji Shah Market, 3Rd Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- Floor, Yusuf Meherali Road, 400051. Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaab0167G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain Assessee By: Shri V. Kadrekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2007-08, 2008-09, 2012-13 & 2009-10. Ita. No.460/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.07.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08. Ita Nos. 460 To 463/Mum/2021 A.Ys.2007-08 To 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

section 80P(4) of the Income tax Act 1961." 4. “The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. “The appellant craves leave to amend or to alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 4. The brief facts

STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR),MUMBAI vs. ACIT -CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation is to be provided for under the HTM category." 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, now merged with the State Bank of India, is a public sector banking company, engaged in banking, treasury operations and other retail services. The assessee filed return of income for the year

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation is to be provided for under the HTM category." 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, now merged with the State Bank of India, is a public sector banking company, engaged in banking, treasury operations and other retail services. The assessee filed return of income for the year

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

depreciation and development rebate it was necessary to find out \"the\nactual cost of the plant and machinery purchased by the company. This court\nheld that "cost" is a word of wider connotation than "price". There was a\ndifference between the price of a machinery and its cost. This court thereafter\npointed out that the expression "actual cost

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

depreciation and development rebate it was necessary to find out \"the\nactual cost of the plant and machinery purchased by the company. This court\nheld that \"cost\" is a word of wider connotation than \"price\". There was a\ndifference between the price of a machinery and its cost. This court thereafter\npointed out that the expression \"actual cost

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

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

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

ESSAR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

Section 47(vii) of the Act. 6.7 In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that this allegation too is misconceived and not relevant. 7. Enquiries made by the Assessing Officer in respect of merger of ECHL with ISL: 7.1 Your Honour has also referred to the merger of ECHL with the ISL and made the following allegations