THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

155,229 was reduced and net disallowance was made of ₹ 344,362,109/–. 12. While computing the book profit also the learned AO made an adjustment of the above sum of ₹ 344,362,109 in clause (F) of explanation 1 to section 115JB of the act for the purpose of computation of book profit.. Accordingly by the disallowance

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

155,229 was reduced and net disallowance was made of ₹ 344,362,109/–. 12. While computing the book profit also the learned AO made an adjustment of the above sum of ₹ 344,362,109 in clause (F) of explanation 1 to section 115JB of the act for the purpose of computation of book profit.. Accordingly by the disallowance

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

155,229 was reduced and net disallowance was made of ₹ 344,362,109/–. 12. While computing the book profit also the learned AO made an adjustment of the above sum of ₹ 344,362,109 in clause (F) of explanation 1 to section 115JB of the act for the purpose of computation of book profit.. Accordingly by the disallowance

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

155,229 was reduced and net disallowance was made of ₹ 344,362,109/–. 12. While computing the book profit also the learned AO made an adjustment of the above sum of ₹ 344,362,109 in clause (F) of explanation 1 to section 115JB of the act for the purpose of computation of book profit.. Accordingly by the disallowance

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A by invoking the provisions of rule 8D of the act could also be imputed under the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the act has already been decided by special bench in case of Vireet Investments P Ltd 82 taxmann.com 415. Same is now also covered

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A by invoking the provisions of rule 8D of the act could also be imputed under the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the act has already been decided by special bench in case of Vireet Investments P Ltd 82 taxmann.com 415. Same is now also covered

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A by invoking the provisions of rule 8D of the act could also be imputed under the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the act has already been decided by special bench in case of Vireet Investments P Ltd 82 taxmann.com 415. Same is now also covered

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A by invoking the provisions of rule 8D of the act could also be imputed under the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the act has already been decided by special bench in case of Vireet Investments P Ltd 82 taxmann.com 415. Same is now also covered

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).

155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

19,017.58 2013-14 9,053.99 25,000.00 2014-15 9,163.21 27,955.19 2015-16 9,030.55 30,969.97 2016-17 8,887.85 34,121.06 10.1. From the factual position tabulated above, it is evident that assessee had sufficient owned funds from which investments were made, yielding tax-free income. By following consistency on this aspect of the issue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

19,017.58 2013-14 9,053.99 25,000.00 2014-15 9,163.21 27,955.19 2015-16 9,030.55 30,969.97 2016-17 8,887.85 34,121.06 10.1. From the factual position tabulated above, it is evident that assessee had sufficient owned funds from which investments were made, yielding tax-free income. By following consistency on this aspect of the issue

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

19,017.58 2013-14 9,053.99 25,000.00 2014-15 9,163.21 27,955.19 2015-16 9,030.55 30,969.97 2016-17 8,887.85 34,121.06 10.1. From the factual position tabulated above, it is evident that assessee had sufficient owned funds from which investments were made, yielding tax-free income. By following consistency on this aspect of the issue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

19,017.58 2013-14 9,053.99 25,000.00 2014-15 9,163.21 27,955.19 2015-16 9,030.55 30,969.97 2016-17 8,887.85 34,121.06 10.1. From the factual position tabulated above, it is evident that assessee had sufficient owned funds from which investments were made, yielding tax-free income. By following consistency on this aspect of the issue

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

155 taxmann.com 322 (SC),\ndated 16/10/2023. On perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (Supra), we\nfind that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the annual license fees paid\nby the Telecom Companies was capital in nature and will be capital in nature\nand

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

155 taxmann.com 322 (SC),\ndated 16/10/2023. On perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (Supra), we\nfind that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the annual license fees paid\nby the Telecom Companies was capital in nature and will be capital in nature\nand

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

19 May 2008 for assessment year 92 – 93\nh. 17 September 2009 four assessment year 95 – 96\ni. 26 July 2013 for assessment year 1996 – 1997\n19) It was further submitted that the honourable\njurisdictional High Court on appeal by the income tax\ndepartment against the order of the coordinate bench for\n assessment year 1996 – 1997 as per order

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

19(f) at Page 225 of First Paper Book). 225 of First Paper Book). 2.4 Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Supreme Cou 2.4 Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Supreme Cou 2.4 Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015 the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 are barred

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

19(f) at Page 225 of First Paper Book). 225 of First Paper Book). 2.4 Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Supreme Cou 2.4 Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Supreme Cou 2.4 Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015 the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 are barred