ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

disallowance under section 40 A (3) of the act. It was further claimed that there are two different version of the print out of the same Ledger of the tally books of accounts of the assessee, which were presented before the learned assessing officer as well as before the learned CIT – A which warranted invoking the provisions of section 251

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowances under Section 40(a)(i)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act'] amounting to Rs.\n8,55,053 and decide the issue. Such findings of the CIT(A)\nare in violation of the provisions of section 251

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

disallowances under Section 40(a)(i)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act'] amounting to Rs.\n8,55,053 and decide the issue. Such findings of the CIT(A)\nare in violation of the provisions of section 251

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowances under Section 40(a)(i)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act'] amounting to Rs.\n8,55,053 and decide the issue. Such findings of the CIT(A)\nare in violation of the provisions of section 251

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowances under Section 40(a)(i)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act'] amounting to Rs.\n8,55,053 and decide the issue. Such findings of the CIT(A)\nare in violation of the provisions of section 251

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

disallowances under Section 40(a)(i)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act'] amounting to Rs.\n8,55,053 and decide the issue. Such findings of the CIT(A)\nare in violation of the provisions of section 251

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

disallowance, which does not appear\nto be the legislative intent.\n109. A careful reading of section 80G further shows that the\nlegislature has expressly excluded only certain CSR contributions\nfrom the ambit of deduction. Specifically, section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk)\nand 80G(2)(a)(iiihl) provide that contributions made to Swachh\nBharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund shall not qualify

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 has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

YES BANK LTD.,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 has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

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 has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

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 has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

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 has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

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 has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

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)

section 80G where the other statutory conditions are fulfilled. Similarly, in First American (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 1762/Bang/2019) and Allegis Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 1693/Bang/2019), the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal held that denial of deduction under Chapter VI-A merely because the payment forms part of CSR expenditure would lead to double

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

section 251 of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that the order of the 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that the order of the 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that the order of the CIT(A) is void ab CIT(A) is void ab-initio and/or otherwise

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

section 251 of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that the order of the 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that the order of the 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that the order of the CIT(A) is void ab CIT(A) is void ab-initio and/or otherwise

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

EDELWEISS ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 251(1)(a) r.w. Explanation sent enhancement notice asking the assessee to explain why the ESOP of expenses should not be disallowed