ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

b). In the given situation clause (iv) of section 143(1) (a) of the Act applies and we do not see any fault at the end of the CPC, Bengaluru while considering these amounts for the purposes Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. of disallowance u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Our observations are with reference to scope of section 143(1

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

41. The facts in brief are that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.7,86,000 under Section 80HHC of the Act, on the profits derived from export of goods. The appellant claimed to have computed deduction in the manner laid down under section 80HHC. The AO recomputed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act after making following adjustments. No deduction

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)

1,00,000 in the case of a professional firm and Rs. 75,000 in the case of a non-professional firm, the limit is 60% of the “book-profit” in this slab. For the balance of the “book-profit” after these two slabs, the limit is 40% . 48.7 Under the provisions of section 40A(2) an Assessing Officer

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)

1,00,000 in the case of a professional firm and Rs. 75,000 in the case of a non-professional firm, the limit is 60% of the “book-profit” in this slab. For the balance of the “book-profit” after these two slabs, the limit is 40% . 48.7 Under the provisions of section 40A(2) an Assessing Officer

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

b) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant bank has not claimed bad debts written off to which recovery pertains as an allowable expenditure in its return of income in the past years. c) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in order to tax the recovery of the bad debts under section 41

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

b. Specific provision of sections 36(1)(iv)/36(1)(v) and 40A(7)/40A(9) of the Act are applicable to the pension liability. Further, the same should only be allowed on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act. Hence, a general provision like section 37(1) of the Act cannot apply. 18. We noted that

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year