MOUNT MARY NAGARI CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

2)(a)(i) of the Act, having regard to the\nmode of business of the assessee.\n8. The provision of Section 80A(5) speaks that where the assessee fails\nto make a claim for his return of income for any deduction under Section\n10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA or under any\nprovision of this chapter

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)

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 by an assessee

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)

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 by an assessee

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

C. Green Cooperative Housing and Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-21(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1343/Mum/2017, dated 31.03.2017 (iii) Marvwanjee Cama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-Range-20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. Also, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income

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

C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: I.T.A. No. 1387 to 1390/Mum/2009, are four separate appeals by the assessee preferred against the four separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)- Central II, Mumbai, dated 17/12/2008, pertaining

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

c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case may be, on the date on which the option is exercised by\nthe assessee as reduced by the amount actually paid

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

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case may be, on the date on which the option is exercised by\nthe assessee as reduced by the amount actually paid

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

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

2,000 crores in this process. 30 M/s. Vajresh Consultants Ltd. (Earlier known as Essar Capital Ltd.) 6.5 In this regard, we respectfully reiterate that the appointed date of the amalgamation was not in the year under consideration (AY 2012-13). Further, the consideration was not received by the assessee and hence, had no bearing on its taxable income

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

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

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

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

C of the Income Tax Act on the Scheduled Bank. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/revenue placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbtore reported in 2010 (2) SCC 548. However,this judgment pertains to non Banking financial companies.Uco Bank case (supra) and Mercantile Bank (su pra) casesquarely applies