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

section 145. By claming amortization, the assesse seeks to neutralize the effect of valuing the securities in HTM category on cost price which is one of the two recognized methods of valuation of the closing stock. 7.5 It cannot be the effect of the RBI guidelines that the total income for the purpose of Income Tax has to be computed

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

section 145. By claming amortization, the assesse seeks to neutralize the effect of valuing the securities in HTM category on cost price which is one of the two recognized methods of valuation of the closing stock. 7.5 It cannot be the effect of the RBI guidelines that the total income for the purpose of Income Tax has to be computed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

145(2). After the insertion of Sections 43AA and 36(1)(xviii)\nand the notification of ICDS-I and ICDS-VI, the field is occupied by\nspecific statutory directions. Where there is a conflict between\ngeneral accounting conventions and a binding computation\nstandard, the latter must prevail for purposes of the Act.\n12.21\nIn the light of the above discussion

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

145(2). After the insertion of sections 43AA and 36(1)(xviii)\nand the notification of ICDS-I and ICDS-VI, the field is occupied by\nspecific statutory directions. Where there is a conflict between\ngeneral accounting conventions and a binding computation\nstandard, the latter must prevail for purposes of the Act.\n12.21 In the light of the above discussion

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

disallowance of interest paid on the said loan amounting to Rs.1,00,823/- made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), without appreciating the evidences and confirmation made by the Loan creditor including affidavit furnished before the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. During hearing, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Rajkumar Singh, contended that except

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

145 taxmann.com 641) wherein it was held that while calculating disallowance made under Rule 8D @ 0.5% of the held that while calculating disallowance made under Rule 8D @ 0.5% of the held that while calculating disallowance made under Rule 8D @ 0.5% of the average investments, only those investments have to be considered which average investments, only those investments have

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1

M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 The State Bank Of India Asst. Cit Circle-Patiala, (Successor To State Bank Of Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Patiala), Patiala-147001 Dgm & Cfo, Sbi, Local Head Office – Chandigarh, 2Nd Floor, Sector 17A, Chandigarh- 160017. Pan No. Aaccs 0143 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved & Mr. Ninadpatade, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023

disallowance of provision before bad debts under Section 36 (1) (viia) of Rs.8.53 before bad debts under Section 36 (1) (viia) of Rs.8.53 before bad debts under Section 36 (1) (viia) of Rs.8.53 crores observing that as per Rule 62ABA of the Income Tax crores observing that as per Rule 62ABA of the Income Tax crores observing that

LATE SHRI MOHAN RAJ CHHAJED (THROUGH LEGAL JEOR SHANTILAL CHHAJED),MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Through Legal Heir Shantilal Pali Rajasthan-306-401. Chhajed), Vs. 601, Shilpa Apartments, C.D. Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaipc 6614 N Appellant Respondent

1) [has not been regularly followed by the assessee, or income has not been computed in accordance with the the assessee, or income has not been computed in accordance with the the assessee, or income has not been computed in accordance with the standards notified under standards notified under sub-section (2)], the Assessing Officer may make section

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

145 taxmann.com 641 held that for purpose of making disallowance of expenses under section 14A as per rule 8D, only those investments were to be considered for computing average value of investments which yielded exempt income during relevant year. After considering the submission and the case laws the addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

145 taxmann.com 641 held that for purpose of making disallowance of expenses under section 14A as per rule 8D, only those investments were to be considered for computing average value of investments which yielded exempt income during relevant year. After considering the submission and the case laws the addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of provision for pension. 5. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, are: During the year under consideration, the assessee made a claim for allowing provision of Rs. 1495.50 crores towards pension liability without actually contributing to the fund. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish complete working of the provision