KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

disallowed deductions to the assessee in respect of its housing project "Models Legacy" inter alia on the ground of breach of the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (said Act) in respect of 5 of the residential units in the said project, which otherwise comprised of a total of 352 residential units

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

disallowed deductions to the assessee in respect of its housing project "Models Legacy" inter alia on the ground of breach of the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (said Act) in respect of 5 of the residential units in the said project, which otherwise comprised of a total of 352 residential units

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

disallowed deductions to the assessee in respect of its housing project "Models Legacy" inter alia on the ground of breach of the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (said Act) in respect of 5 of the residential units in the said project, which otherwise comprised of a total of 352 residential units

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

disallowed deductions to the assessee in respect of its housing project "Models Legacy" inter alia on the ground of breach of the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (said Act) in respect of 5 of the residential units in the said project, which otherwise comprised of a total of 352 residential units

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

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb\nsuch a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear.\"\n59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in\nparagraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very\nPage | 58\nclear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable\nhigh court

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

section 18 of the Act. However, assessee \nclaimed that such amount was deductible under sections 19 & 20 of \nthe Act. It was in the light of such facts that the decision in Vijaya \nBank Ltd. (supra) was rendered. \n20. Therefore, Bombay High Court in American Express \nInternational Banking Corpn. (supra), in the facts of that case, held \nthat having assessed

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).

260A” 16.1. The relevant facts in brief are that during the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessee was asked to show cause why amounts falling under Clause (b) to (f) of Section 43B aggregating to INR.4,57,39,010/- were not disallowed

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited to P&L A/c to the tune of Rs. 455,78,00,000/- towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee computed the deduction claimed

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited to P&L A/c to the tune of Rs. 455,78,00,000/- towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee computed the deduction claimed

DCIT CEN CIR 3(3) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SHAREKHAN LTD, MUMBAI

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

disallowance of interest under section 14A of the Act on the ground of presumption where sufficient interest-free funds are available to make investment in tax-free instruments. This issue was only decided later by this court for the first time in the petitioner's own case in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra). (c) In view of the fact that there

SHAREKHAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 3(3), MUMBAI

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

disallowance of interest under section 14A of the Act on the ground of presumption where sufficient interest-free funds are available to make investment in tax-free instruments. This issue was only decided later by this court for the first time in the petitioner's own case in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra). (c) In view of the fact that there

SHAREKHAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(3), MUMBAI

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

disallowance of interest under section 14A of the Act on the ground of presumption where sufficient interest-free funds are available to make investment in tax-free instruments. This issue was only decided later by this court for the first time in the petitioner's own case in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra). (c) In view of the fact that there

DCIT CEN CIR 3(3) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SHAREKHAN LTD, MUMBAI

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

disallowance of interest under section 14A of the Act on the ground of presumption where sufficient interest-free funds are available to make investment in tax-free instruments. This issue was only decided later by this court for the first time in the petitioner's own case in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra). (c) In view of the fact that there

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. – Rs.13,01,85,558/- Ground 2(a) to 2(h): Deduction U/s 36(1)(vii) on the balance outstanding in respect of rural advance. 7. The issue is inter-connected with Ground 1; so the issue is covered in favour of the assesse in consolidated order

AHMED P. SURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Section 260A" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of exemption for long-term capital gains and the addition made under Section 68 were

DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MARKSANS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), M/S Marksans Pharma Room No.216-A, Limited, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Vs. M.K. Road, Desai, Extension Road, Mumbai-400020 Andehri (West), Mumbai-400053 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaact3153G C.O. No.102/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7278/Mum/2016 ) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Marksans Pharma Dcit-10(2)(2), Limited, Room No.216-A, बनाम/ 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Desai, Extension Road, M.K. Road, Andehri (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecm6057A

disallowances are cancelled and the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The ground no. 2 as raised by the assessee stands allowed. 12. Since we have already deleted the penalty on merits, the legal issue as raised in ground no. 1 is not being adjudicated as the same has become purely academic. 13. In the result appeal filed

PRIYA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD),CIR 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Priya Ltd. Dcit(Osd), Circle-2(3), 209-210, Kimatraj Building बनाम/ R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 02 Floor, 77/79 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd), Priya Ltd. 209-210, Kimatraj Building Circle-2(3), बनाम/ 02 Floor, 77/79 R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the order dated 4th January, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.87/DEL/2008 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2004-05. 2. Admit. 3. The following substantial question of law is arises for determination: “Whether disallowance

TAKSHASHILA ACADEMIA OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

disallowance of interest made under section 14A of the Act cannot be faulted.” The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 518 (P &H) held/observed as under:- The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A