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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26/07/2021, assessing total income of INR 2695,97,16,260/- after making (a) addition on account of disallowance

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The issue of interest on fixed deposits was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 143(3)", "Section 80IAB", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 153(3)", "Section 153(5)", "Section 254", "Section 250", "Section 260

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 45 read with section 47(iv) of the Act on slump sale of business of Rs. 742,82,74,000 32. The learned AO after perusing the computation of total income along-with the MAT computation and the letter dated 1 December 2015 (Refer page 51 to 55 of Paperbook) which was on record

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed under section 43B while filing the return of income should be allowed as a deduction for the reason that interest is not part of the electricity charge payable and therefore, should be allowed as deduction with respect of the status of actual payment. The ld. AO denied the claim of the assessee first on the ground that the claim

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed under section 43B while filing the return of income should be allowed as a deduction for the reason that interest is not part of the electricity charge payable and therefore, should be allowed as deduction with respect of the status of actual payment. The ld. AO denied the claim of the assessee first on the ground that the claim

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

260 or section 262 is\nreceived by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief\nCommissioner or Principal Commissioner as the case may be the\nassessment order passed by the AO after a period of about three\nyears is barred by limitation, void, ab-initio and bad in law.\n51. So the additional ground No.1 raised by the assessee is\nallowed. When

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

section 14A of the Act on investments which are held as stock- in-trade. The said issue has also been 49 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 decided in favour of the assessee by the Mumbai Tribunal in [ITA NO. 3789/Mum/2013] [erstwhile State Bank of Saurashtra which has since merged with the assessee] vide

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, 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, 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 The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. 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)

260,715,583/–. As the assessee has already disallowed the sum in computation of total income of ₹ 7,530,532/–, so net disallowance under section

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, 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, 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 The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. 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)

260,715,583/–. As the assessee has already disallowed the sum in computation of total income of ₹ 7,530,532/–, so net disallowance under section

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

disallowance merely on the basis of surmises is not sustainable. So we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No.14a, 14b & 14c in ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue’s appeal are decided against the Revenue. ITA No.521/M/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 of Assessee’s appeal & ITA No.7498/M/2018

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

disallowance merely on the basis of surmises is not sustainable. So we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No.14a, 14b & 14c in ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue’s appeal are decided against the Revenue. ITA No.521/M/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 of Assessee’s appeal & ITA No.7498/M/2018

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

disallowance merely on the basis of surmises is not sustainable. So we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No.14a, 14b & 14c in ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue’s appeal are decided against the Revenue. ITA No.521/M/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 of Assessee’s appeal & ITA No.7498/M/2018

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

disallowance merely on the basis of surmises is not sustainable. So we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No.14a, 14b & 14c in ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue’s appeal are decided against the Revenue. ITA No.521/M/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 of Assessee’s appeal & ITA No.7498/M/2018

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this or reference

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this or reference

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

section 43B of the Act. The AO in this\nregard relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of\nMewar Motors Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 218 (Raj.). On further appeal, the\nCIT(A) upheld the order of the AO.\n24. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice

ELDELWEISS SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(1) (1) , MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

260/-. Subsequently, the return was revised on 28 March 2018 at income of ₹128,73,01,580/-. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny. 05. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has earned exempt income of dividend amounting to ₹80,75,88,816/- and has suo motto computed disallowance of ₹12,06,069/- under Section

EDELWEISS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

260/-. Subsequently, the return was revised on 28 March 2018 at income of ₹128,73,01,580/-. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny. 05. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has earned exempt income of dividend amounting to ₹80,75,88,816/- and has suo motto computed disallowance of ₹12,06,069/- under Section