INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

disallowed. 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

disallowed. 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

disallowed. 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions

ITO-26(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

disallowed. 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

disallowed. 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

disallowed. 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in 4. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 800(2) which is clearly in contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said notices are not required 10 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said notices are not required 10 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said notices are not required 10 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said notices are not required 10 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said notices are not required 10 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects

TATA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2(3), MUMBAI

disallowance of\nDebenture/Bond Expenses of INR 14,82,902/- made by the\nAssessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A).\n6.1.\nDuring the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted\n29\nthat the Appellant had debited debenture and bond issue\nexpenses of INR 14,82,902/- under the `Head Office Expenses'.\nVide notice dated 26/12/2007, issued under Section 142(2

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

disallowance and view therefore, of both the lower authorities, is without jurisdiction and therefore, may be quashed for the want of jurisdiction." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company filed its return of income on 15.10.2016 declaring total loss of Rs. 3,64,13,448/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through system under computer

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) the assessee submitted that, assessee's own funds are sufficient and therefore, no is warranted. With regard to disallowance made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and gave relief to the assessee stating that when the assessee is having sufficient own funds no disallowance

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) the assessee submitted that, assessee's own funds are sufficient and therefore, no is warranted. With regard to disallowance made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and gave relief to the assessee stating that when the assessee is having sufficient own funds no disallowance

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) the assessee submitted that, assessee's own funds are sufficient and therefore, no is warranted. With regard to disallowance made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and gave relief to the assessee stating that when the assessee is having sufficient own funds no disallowance

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) the assessee submitted that, assessee's own funds are sufficient and therefore, no is warranted. With regard to disallowance made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and gave relief to the assessee stating that when the assessee is having sufficient own funds no disallowance

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) the assessee submitted that, assessee's own funds are sufficient and therefore, no is warranted. With regard to disallowance made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and gave relief to the assessee stating that when the assessee is having sufficient own funds no disallowance