DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

disallowed as per the provisions of Section 43 c) Provision for Wage arrears amounting to Rs 96,00,00,000/- In all the above cases, there is no Revenue loss. Any recovery made in respect of bad debts allowed ad deduction us/ 36(1)(vii), has to be offered to tax u/s 41(4) in the year of recovery

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

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

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)

66,108 has been allowed under section 40(b)( ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This expenses has been claimed against exempted dividend income. Therefore, whether this expense is claimed or allowed under section 36(1)(iii) or 40( b)(ii) will not make any difference for the purpose of applying provisions of section 14A of the Income

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)

66,108 has been allowed under section 40(b)( ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This expenses has been claimed against exempted dividend income. Therefore, whether this expense is claimed or allowed under section 36(1)(iii) or 40( b)(ii) will not make any difference for the purpose of applying provisions of section 14A of the Income

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

66,668, the quantum of offshore supplies is ` 5,55,54,119. Therefore it cannot be said that offshore supplies are skewed. Having analysed the facts of the case in the context of the decisions relied upon we are of the considered view that the assessee‟s case is more or less similar to the facts involved in case

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

disallowing the expenditure claimed by the Appellant in buying the air- M/s. Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd., time from the channel companies on account of the non-deduction of tax at source, under section 40(a)(i) is sustained.” 10. As regards assessee’s contention that AO has erred in applying the provisions of Section

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENDUS CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jcit (Osd)-14(1)(1), M/S Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, 901, Platina, 9Th Floor, Plot No. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C59, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aabcc 2404 Q Appellant Respondent

disallowance of ESOP expenses under section 37(1) of the 3.1 The brief facts qua The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that the issue in dispute are that the assessee debited ₹7,66

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1,55,05,321/ 1,55,05,321/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the fact that the assessee has not Rules, 1962 without considering the fact that the assessee has not Rules, 1962 without considering

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1,55,05,321/ 1,55,05,321/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the fact that the assessee has not Rules, 1962 without considering the fact that the assessee has not Rules, 1962 without considering

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 9. The issue arising in ground no. 2, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to depreciation on maturity securities. 10. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, are: It has been the practice of the assessee to make provisions in respect of overdue debentures/bonds which matured but remain

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 9. The issue arising in ground no. 2, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to depreciation on maturity securities. 10. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, are: It has been the practice of the assessee to make provisions in respect of overdue debentures/bonds which matured but remain

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

66,952. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) as well as\nnotice under section 142(1) of the Act along with a detailed questionnaire were\nissued and served on the assessee. On the perusal of the documents found\nduring the course of the search, the AO vide detailed show cause notice dated\n03/12/2019 noted that there is non-compliance

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

66 (SC) holding that before invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the assessment order should be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Hon’ble Court held that if the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. However, every loss of Revenue