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

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore under

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore under

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore under

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer

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)

section 40(a)(i) of the Act and tax should have been deducted at source by the assessee firm u/s 195 of the Act or an application should have been made by the assessee firm for no deduction of tax at source u/s 195(2) of the Act . Thus the AO held that these payments to non-resident by assessee

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)

section 40(a)(i) of the Act and tax should have been deducted at source by the assessee firm u/s 195 of the Act or an application should have been made by the assessee firm for no deduction of tax at source u/s 195(2) of the Act . Thus the AO held that these payments to non-resident by assessee

DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

131 to 156 of the assessee’s Paper Book, records this payment. The delay, therefore, was only for four days and was solely attributable to the moratorium imposed by the RBI. The tax auditor, after considering the prevailing legal position and the jurisdictional High Court's decision, allowed the deduction under Section 36(1)(va). Notwithstanding this

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

131 to 156 of the assessee’s Paper Book, records this payment. The delay, therefore, was only for four days and was solely attributable to the moratorium imposed by the RBI. The tax auditor, after considering the prevailing legal position and the jurisdictional High Court's decision, allowed the deduction under Section 36(1)(va). Notwithstanding this

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.

131 TTJ (Pune)(Trib) 172 c) Chitra Publicity Co (P) Ltd v ACIT (2010)127 TTJ (Ahd)(Trib) 1 (iii) CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) (320) The Judgement to be read on the basis of question before the Court. 4) Decisions relied on by the AO are not applicable to the facts

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

1. Disallowance under Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D. The Appellant submits that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and true interpretation of the provisions of Section 14A, a. CIT(A) erred by not giving ground of rejection of Appellant's own disallowance Instead directly applied Rule 8D in his order. b. CIT(A) erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs. 10,53,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable in law. The addition is therefore deleted and Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Ground No. 5 – Additional Ground: Claim of Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 78,67,620/- 117. During the appellate proceedings

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

disallowance and held that the provision of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in the case.” 8.1. During the course of hearing the Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, stated that the Assessee does not wish to pursue this ground since relief has been granted to the assessee in relation to this ground in appellate proceedings pertaining to the preceding

THE WOODLAND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed the claim u/s.80P(2)(d) in\nrespect of income and dividend income from co-operative banks\namounting to Rs.3,77,131/- as the return was not filed as per the\nprovisions of Section 139(1