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)

b)………………………………………………………………. (c)……………………………………………………………… (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income” Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid Sec. 80P(2)(d) it can safely be gathered that income by way of interest income derived

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)

b)………………………………………………………………. (c)……………………………………………………………… (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income” Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid Sec. 80P(2)(d) it can safely be gathered that income by way of interest income derived

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

b)............................................................................................ (c)............................................................................................ (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income;” On a perusal of the aforesaid Sec. 80P(2)(d), it can safely be gathered that interest income derived by an assessee co-operative society from

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

DCIT OSD 1(1), MUMBAI vs. THE SARASWAT CO-OP BANK P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8622/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Deputy Commissioner Of The Saraswat Co-Operative बनाम/ Income Tax(Osd),1(1) Bank Limited V. Room No. 540/564, 5 T H Floor Madhushree, Plot No. 85 Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road District Navi Mumbai- New Marine Lines 400 703 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact5543L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

depreciation) , while for purposes of working the cost it has been taken at Rs. 1091.90 lacs which is in excess by Rs. 2.46 crores. The AO worked out cost per transaction at arms’ length at Rs.1.64 and excessive expenses claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 7.95 crores were added to the income of the assessee by invoking

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation on shifting of AFS securities to HTM category is untenable as similar disallowance made in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2009–10 was allowed by him. As regards the other disallowances made including the provisions of bad and doubtful debts, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that since such disallowances are in respect of normal business activities

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

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all\nbanks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.\n38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

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

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all\nbanks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.\n\n38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

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

b\j a firm of Chartered Accountants which was provided to and duly verified by the AO. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that allegation of your Honour that shares were issued to ETHL in lieu of 10.97% stake in VEL is unwarranted. 6,4. Your Honour has also alleged that shares worth Rs 3,359 crores received by ETHL ions

THE CITY COOPERTAVIE BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

80P from A.Y. 2007-08. The deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is available in respect of bad debts written off subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified under section 36(2). Section 36(1)(viia) provides for the treatment of provisions for bad and doubtful debts of an amount not exceeding 7.5% of the total income (computed before

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

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

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

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBER ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

80P(2) — Tribunal empowered to entertain a new claim for deduction otherwise than by.way of filing a revised return — Matter remitted to AO." 11.3) We are also producing Circular No.14(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 which says that, Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It..is one of their duties

DCIT - 1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. AGRASEN URBAN CO.OP.BANK LTD., PUNE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

B' Pune in the appellate order in ITA no. ;' 690/PN/2013 for AY 2009-10 dated 27-11-2013 in favour of the appellant, referring to the decision of the ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Nashik Merchant Co-op bank Ltd, in ITA no. 1254/PN/2011 wherein also the Tribunal had decided the issue in assessee's favour by observing