VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

1,97,54,77,395/- proposed in the Draft Assessment Order) in respect of roaming charges. 6.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6.5. We note that in the identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has, vide order dated 08/11/2023

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

253 of the Income-tax Act (‘the Act’) are directed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C passed in pursuance of direction of ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1 (ld. DRP), Mumbai for Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08. In both the appeals, the assessee has raised certain identical grounds of appeal, therefore, both the appeals were

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

253 to 257/Mum/2021), the aforesaid order, dated 15/02/2021, was recalled as the Assessee had failed to make payment of tax amount. In the above background the appeals came up for hearing before us. Assessment Year 2014-15 2. We would first take up three appeals pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2.1. ITA No. 3195/Mum/2019 preferred by the Assessee

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

253/- u/s 14A of\nthe Act.\n3. Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80(IA) in respect of captive power\nplant:- Rs. 40,04,53,625/-\nThe learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the deduction u/s\n80(IA) of Rs. 40,04,53,625/-\nin respect of the captive power plant\nby relying on the orders

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

253 to\n257/Mum/2021), the aforesaid order, dated 15/02/2021, was\nrecalled as the Assessee had failed to make payment of tax amount.\nIn the above background the appeals came up for hearing before\nus.\n2.\n Assessment Year 2014-15\n2.1. We would first take up three appeals pertaining to the Assessment\nYear 2014-15.\nITA No. 3195/Mum/2019 preferred

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

253. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had ble Delhi High Court had ruled that, in absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s ruled that, in absence of any exempt income, disallowance u ruled that, in absence of any exempt income, disallowance u 14A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. In arriving

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

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).

Section 43B of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 01/04/1988. The First Proviso made it clear that Section 43B shall not apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee in the next accounting year if it is paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

1. This group of three appeals by assessee under section 253 of Income tax Act are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals)- 54, Mumbai for assessment year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee has raised one common ground of appeal in all assessment years, on disallowance

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

section\n14A of the Act by making such disallowance also in respect of income from tax\nfree bonds (refer Ground Nos. 4.1 and 4.3 of the Concise Grounds of Appeal).\nf) Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores\ntowards receipt of non-compete fees when it was taxable neither as revenue re-\nceipt

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

1-4-2013, that is, from\n assessment year 2013-14 onwards, are not applicable to the banks constituted\nas 'corresponding new bank' in terms of the Banking Companies (Acquisition\nand Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, the provision of\nSection 115JB cannot be applied and consequently, the tax on book profits\n(MAT) are not applicable to such

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance made by the AO.”\n16.2 Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench, ground No. 1\nis dismissed.\n17.\nGround No. 2 relates to the deletion of doubtful debts as per\nRule 6EA.\n17.1 An identical issue was decided by the coordinate bench in the assessee's\nown case in ITA No. 1819/Mum/2023. The relevant findings read as under

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance made by the AO.”\n16.2 Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench, ground No. 1\nis dismissed.\n17.\nGround No. 2 relates to the deletion of doubtful debts as per\nRule 6EA.\n17.1 An identical issue was decided by the coordinate bench in the assessee's\nown case in ITA No. 1819/Mum/2023. The relevant findings read as under