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

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

section 36(1)(viii) in accordance with law keeping in mind the principal of consistency as has been laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench. The assessee is directed to provide the necessary details in support of the income from eligible business as declared and co-operate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

disallowance sustained by the DRP is erroneous and wrong. The learned AR relied on the following decisions • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom) • Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT [2011] 347 ITR 272 (Del), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) [2018] 51.1. Without prejudice to the arguments

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

disallowance sustained by the DRP is erroneous and wrong. The learned AR relied on the following decisions • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom) • Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT [2011] 347 ITR 272 (Del), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) [2018] 51.1. Without prejudice to the arguments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

disallowance under s. 14A of the Act.\n(b)\nProfits and gains of business as referred to in\nabove have only to be computed in accordance\nwith rule 5 of the First Schedule.\n20. Section 44 creates a specific exception to the applicability of\nsections 28 to 43B. Therefore, the purpose, object and purview of\nsection 14A has no applicability

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, both the appeals preferred by the Revenue are\ndismissed

disallowance under s. 14A of the Act.\n(b)\nProfits and gains of business as referred to in\n(a) above have only to be computed in accordance\nwith rule 5 of the First Schedule.\n20. Section 44 creates a specific exception to the applicability of\nsections 28 to 43B. Therefore, the purpose, object and purview of\nsection

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance following these orders. 27. The Ld. D.R. did not raise any objection against the submission of the Ld. A.R. 28. After perusing the material on record and the decision cited by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee, we find that the identical issue has been decided in the case of General Insurance Corporation of India vs. ACIT (supra) following

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance following these orders. 27. The Ld. D.R. did not raise any objection against the submission of the Ld. A.R. 28. After perusing the material on record and the decision cited by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee, we find that the identical issue has been decided in the case of General Insurance Corporation of India vs. ACIT (supra) following

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

disallowances made by the AO. With regard to\nfresh claim made towards deduction under section 36(1)(viia) the CIT(A) rejected\nthe claim of the assessee. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the\nTribunal against the order of the CIT(A).\nClaim of beneficial rate of DTAA on tax paid on dividend – Ground No.1

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

disallowances made by the AO. With regard to\nfresh claim made towards deduction under section 36(1)(viia) the CIT(A) rejected\nthe claim of the assessee. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the\nTribunal against the order of the CIT(A).\n\nClaim of beneficial rate of DTAA on tax paid on dividend – Ground No.1

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 7,58,646/- in respect of ex-gratia payment made in accordance with Rule 5 of the first Schedule r.w.s. 44 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 27. At the very outset, learned AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the issue involved in the aforecited grounds are covered in favour of the assessee

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

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In pursuance to ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 the said amalgamation the liability for Bonus, Pension, leave encashment, gratuity as appearing in the Books of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited as on August 12, 2010, of Rs. 7,348,424,124 was taken over by ICICI Bank Limited

ACIT - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blea.C.I.T. – 3(2)(2) V. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Room No. 674, 6Th Floor New India Building, 87 M.G. Road, Fort Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacn4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Farookh Irani Department By : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

disallowance u/s 14A can be made and accordingly, ground no. 3 is allowed in favour of the assessee.” 19. We, therefore, following the above decision of the Tribunal, dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 10. Respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject Ground No.3 of the Revenue’s appeal. 11. Ground

DCIT - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO .LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.3151 & 3149/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3(2)(2) M/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K Road, New India Assurance Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 87, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai -400 001

44A read with First Schedule and therefore, the provisions of section 115JB do not apply to the assessee’s case. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” 16. Respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding that the provisions of section 115JB have no application to the assessee. Ground No.6

SHRI SANDEEP S SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

44A of the Act, there cannot be any application of section 68 of the Act. 16. Thus, in the back drop of the facts, relevant provisions of the Act and case laws discussed above, no addition under section 68 can be made in the instant case. We find merit in ground no.1 raised by the assessee in appeal

DINESHKUMAR VERMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KALYAN

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1183/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Dineshkumar Verma, 102, Sai Aashram Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Tejumal Chaki Road, Nr. Sadhubela School, Ulhasnagar, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Tahane 421 001 Pan : Acmpv 7468B बनाम/ Vs.

disallowance was claimed Mr. Bhuyan very candidly admits that addition was made in exercise ofthe power under-section 68 of the Act, therefore, the first condition necessary for invocation of the power is the existence of the books of account.” [Emphasised] 14. The Tribunal in the case of Madhu Raitani vs. ACIT (supra) following the decision rendered in the case

MR. TEJSINGH DHANSINGH RAJPUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, ()

disallowance was claimed Mr. Bhuyan very candidly admits that addition was made in exercise of the under-section 68 of the Act, therefore, the first condition necessary for invocation of the power is existence of the books of account.” 14. The Tribunal in the case of Madhu Raitani Vs. ACIT (supra) following the decision rendered in the case

ACIT, CIRCLE 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowance as calculated by the Tax Auditor in the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CB in terms of section 44A

ACIT, CIR- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowance as calculated by the Tax Auditor in the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CB in terms of section 44A