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 and 2

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 and 2

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

d) on the interest income earned on its investments held with the co-operative banks, which view we find at the point of framing of the assessment was in conformity with that arrived at by the jurisdictional Tribunal in a host of judicial pronouncements, therefore, the said fact in itself would suffice to divest the Pr.CIT of his revisional jurisdiction

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

d) as the case may be.\n10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”\n11. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the matter before us,\nthough the assessee has not filed any return of income but filed the\nreturn of income in response to notice under Section 142(1) of the Act\nand

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(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee received total interest of Rs.18,50,636/- for the year under consideration

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

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 to AYs 2002-03 to 2005-06. 2. All these appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this common order

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

D E R The aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of two separate orders, both dated 25th July 2014, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, pertaining to the assessment years 2005–06 and 2010–11. ITA no.6640/Mum./2014 Assessment Year – 2005–06 2. In total, the Revenue has raised five grounds. Grounds no.4

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)

D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member These bunch of six appeals by Revenue as well as the assessee relates to the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Since common issues are involved and hence these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. First we shall take

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: -

d) of Rs.1,01,60,309/- of the {Income tax Act, 1961 even though assessee was carrying on banking business.“ 2. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that amendment to section 80P(4) inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2007 by Finance Act, 2006 clearly bans

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

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

D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dated 02.03.2015 for A.Y. 2010-11 by taking the following grounds: - “On the facts and Circumstances of the case, the assessing officer erred in 1. disallowing Bad Debts written off Rs. 92,45,525/- fully

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

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

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

D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-5, (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 25.01.2016 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

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