DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

246A(1)(a) of IT Act. 3. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) is not justified in denying the . The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) is not justified in denying the . The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) is not justified in denying the opportunity of personal hearing when a specific request was opportunity of personal hearing when a specific request was opportunity

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the Ld. Commissioner of Income Commissioner

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the Ld. Commissioner of Income Commissioner

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the Ld. Commissioner of Income Commissioner

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the Ld. Commissioner of Income Commissioner

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the Ld. Commissioner of Income Commissioner

LALITKUMAR RATANCHAND CHADHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 4(2) (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 246A of the Act. Hence, it is considered that the present appeal is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the same is therefore held to be not maintainable.” Lalitkumar Ratanchand Chadha ITA No. 2276/Mum./2021 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned A.R.”) submitted that the Assessing Officer wrongly included ineligible

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

section 40 A (7) gratuity provision, (vi) Reduction from total income under chapter VI A. 07. Consequent to that the Ld. AO noted that after taking into account all relevant material on records no modification to the income determine u/s 143(1) has been made and accordingly the total income was assessed at ₹69,80,460/-. Thus all the addition

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

section 40 A (7) gratuity provision, (vi) Reduction from total income under chapter VI A. 07. Consequent to that the Ld. AO noted that after taking into account all relevant material on records no modification to the income determine u/s 143(1) has been made and accordingly the total income was assessed at ₹69,80,460/-. Thus all the addition

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

section 40 A (7) gratuity provision, (vi) Reduction from total income under chapter VI A. 07. Consequent to that the Ld. AO noted that after taking into account all relevant material on records no modification to the income determine u/s 143(1) has been made and accordingly the total income was assessed at ₹69,80,460/-. Thus all the addition

DCIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LAQSHYA MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2114/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-10(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd Laqshya House, Next To Room No.216-A, Aayakar Vs. Rameshwar Temple, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Saraswati Baug, Society Mumbai-400020. Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060. Co. No.108/M/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 2114/Mum/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(1) Laqshya House, Next To Room No.216-A, Aayakar Vs. Rameshwar Temple, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Saraswati Baug, Society Mumbai-400020. Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl5004C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. Senthil Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Hemen Chandaniya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019

disallowance of the I.T. Act, 1961 by not considering express provision of clause of explanation 1 of section 115JB of the I.T. Act,1961 which unequivocally states that any expenditure incurred in connection with income claimed as exempt u/s 10, 11 & 12 of the Act should be excluded while working out Book Profit u/s 115JB." 2. "On the facts

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Disallowance related to DSC: The then Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(2) had given direction u / s 144A vide order dated 13. 12.2016 to verify the derivative Sales Credit (DSC) claim of the assessee. He observed that no evidence or supporting documents has been produced by the assessee Bank before him to establish it's claim that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

246A(1)(a) of the Act an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act as well as order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act are orders appealable before the CIT(A). Thus, an aggrieved person can file appeal against the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act as well as assessment order passed under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

246A(1)(a) of the Act an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act as well as order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act are orders appealable before the CIT(A). Thus, an aggrieved person can file appeal against the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act as well as assessment order passed under