ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Sections 56(2)(viia) or (viib) are invoked that it is in excess of fair market value of shares which provision will apply from A.Y. 2013-14 and not in A.Y. 2012-13. Thus, the finding of the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the said premium is confirmed. The ld.CIT(A) has already dealt with the valuation of the shares

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

56(2)(viia) .Accordingly the assessment order was considered as\nvalid and in as per law.\n9. We have carefully considered the issue in hand We are of the\nconsidered view that the ld.CIT(A) has correctly held that this mistake\ncould not be considered as fatal and led to nullity of the entire\nassessment order. 22. The provisions

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(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

section 14A of the Act. For instance, if the total cost\nincurred for conducting the Board meeting is Rs. 10 lakhs and out of the total 20 agendas\nin the Board meeting, 5 agendas pertains to subsidiary associate and joint venture\ncompanies, 1/4th i.e. (5/20) cost of the Board meeting viz., Rs. 2.5 lakhs would be\nattributed as amount

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

viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on 01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the deduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on this issue is deleted. As a result, Ground

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

viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on 01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the deduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on this issue is deleted. As a result, Ground

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 – AY 2016-17 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 480,76,49,494/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 – AY 2016-17 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 480,76,49,494/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 – AY 2016-17 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 480,76,49,494/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 – AY 2016-17 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 480,76,49,494/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 – AY 2016-17 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 480,76,49,494/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 – AY 2016-17 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 480,76,49,494/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee

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

viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on\n01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the\ndeduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on\nthis issue is deleted. As a result, Ground

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SOYUMM MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

disallowance made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, by observing as follows: - “10.5 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant has issued non-cumulative redeemable preference shares at the face value of Rs. 100 and premium of Rs. 220. For the purpose of determining the fair market

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SPECTRA REALTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

disallowance made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, by observing as follows: - “10.5 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant has issued non-cumulative redeemable preference shares at the face value of Rs. 100 and premium of Rs. 220. For the purpose of determining the fair market

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

2. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act 4 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that the Appellant has not determined the deduction under section 36(1)(viia), in accordance with the provisions

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

viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on\n01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the\ndeduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on\nthis issue is deleted. As a result, Ground

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viia)/(viib) from A.Y.2013-14.\nThus such an addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act.\n21.\nThe Ld. AR of the appellant has further contended that the\ntransaction is a commercial transaction wherein exiting shareholders\nand independent investors have agreed to participate in business\nventure based on their own understanding of the industry, risk-\nreward matrix and other relevant