KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

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

263 of the Act the specified commission cannot enhance the scope of the assessment beyond the provisions contained in Section 143(1) of the Act as originally available to the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the Learned PCIT has directed the Assessing Officer to carry out inquiry in the matter of claim of deduction of INR.1

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

disallowed by the Appellant in the computation of income as the same pertained to book loss on sale of investments which is taxed under the head capital gains as per the provision of the Act. 5. Deduction allowed under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs.159,22,24,604 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 263.\n\n12. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets of\nINR 1,01,09,650\n\n12.1 The learned

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

263 of the Act for AY 2014-15 in assessee's own case (supra) has given the following findings on merits – 30. The next issue raised by the learned Commissioner is with respect to the alleged failure of the Assessing Officer in not examining whether investments held by the assessee are in conformity with the provisions of Section

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

263 of the Act for AY 2014-15 in assessee's own case (supra) has given the following findings on merits – 30. The next issue raised by the learned Commissioner is with respect to the alleged failure of the Assessing Officer in not examining whether investments held by the assessee are in conformity with the provisions of Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BHUVNESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX P-CIT,MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited Pcit,Mumbai-1 710/A Wing Dattani Plaza Room No. 330, 3 R D Floor, Aayakar Vs. Commercial Premises, Safed Pool, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb4386N

disallowance under section 14 A of ₹ 1,179,875/–. vi. Thereafter the learned Commissioner of income tax, Calcutta – 4, Calcutta once again examined the record and found that the assessment order passed on 2 – 03 – 2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason that (1) the learned assessing officer issued notices under section

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

disallowed CSR expenditure under section 37(1), there is no embargo in law on claiming deduction under section 80G, provided the statutory conditions thereof are satisfied. The Assessing Officer, having examined the claim and allowed the deduction, had taken a plausible and legally sustainable view. 31. In such circumstances, the learned Principal Commissioner could not have invoked section 263

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

263(3) of the Act, dated 28.03.2018 that assessment order passed u/s\n143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest\nof revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct in allowing the\ninterest on perpetual debt instruments without examining and verifying the\nallowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of Id. representatives

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

disallowance of CSR expenses is required to be made under section 37(1), but there is no statutory bar in claiming deduction under section 80G if said expenses are otherwise allowable as deduction under section 80G - Whether view taken by Pr. Commissioner on this issue being a debatable one, meaning thereby, action of Assessing Officer in allowing deduction under section

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed Rs.471,05,05,075/-.\n5. 1. The assessee agitated the matter before ld. CIT(A) and vehemently\ncontended that the assessee had written off bad debts of Rs.923.67 Crore\nafter reducing the opening credit balance in the provision for bad and\ndoubtful debts account u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs.452.61 Crores and claimed\nthe balance amount of Rs.471.06 Crores

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

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 under this

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

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 under this

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act observed as\nfollows: -\n\"16 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and\nperused the relevant material on record. As far as argument of rule of\nconsistency is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contention of the\nassessee following the decision

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

disallowance to the suo-moto disallowance offered by the assessee and the\nsaid relief has not been considered by the CIT (A). 4. The Id. AR with regard to the plea that\ndisallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance, submitted that the\nassessee has investments which are in the nature of stock in trade and also are strategic

DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

1), and that the CPC, Bengaluru, was bound by the binding decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, which supported the assessee’s claim at that time. Hence, the disallowance was argued to be bad in law.In support of this position, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Central, Ludhiana

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

1), and that the CPC, Bengaluru, was bound by the binding decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, which supported the assessee’s claim at that time. Hence, the disallowance was argued to be bad in law.In support of this position, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Central, Ludhiana