BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Properties v. Director of Income-tax [1996] 57 lTD 328 (Bombay,) wherein the Tribunal upheld the argument of the assessee that when an order is passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of a superior authority, the same could not be the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. 1.6. The appellant submits that

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

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

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

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

1) of section 263 of the Income- tax Act provides that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making an enquiry pass an order

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

1) of section 263 of the Income- tax Act provides that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making an enquiry pass an order

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interests

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

house property’ in respect of unsold property’ in respect of unsold flats,the Assessing Officer was he Assessing Officer was required to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and non-initiation of penalty of penalty has rendered the assessment order

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

house property”. 6.2 As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned, The assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. Rs 1

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

house property”. 6.2 As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned, The assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. Rs 1

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

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

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

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

263 of the Act. Since, there was nothing to suggest that the municipal rateable value was not based on relevant material, the AO was justified in taking the said value of ₹ 2,14,495/- as the annual value under section 23(1)(a) of the Act and ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 ₹ 3,16,800/- as such value under section

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

263 of the Act. Since, there was nothing to suggest that the municipal rateable value was not based on relevant material, the AO was justified in taking the said value of ₹ 2,14,495/- as the annual value under section 23(1)(a) of the Act and ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 ₹ 3,16,800/- as such value under section

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

263 of the Act. Since, there was nothing to suggest that the municipal rateable value was not based on relevant material, the AO was justified in taking the said value of ₹ 2,14,495/- as the annual value under section 23(1)(a) of the Act and ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 ₹ 3,16,800/- as such value under section

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

263 of the Act. Since, there was nothing to suggest that the municipal rateable value was not based on relevant material, the AO was justified in taking the said value of ₹ 2,14,495/- as the annual value under section 23(1)(a) of the Act and ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 ₹ 3,16,800/- as such value under section

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

263 of the Act. Since, there was nothing to suggest that the municipal rateable value was not based on relevant material, the AO was justified in taking the said value of ₹ 2,14,495/- as the annual value under section 23(1)(a) of the Act and ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 ₹ 3,16,800/- as such value under section

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

263 of the Act. Since, there was nothing to suggest that the municipal rateable value was not based on relevant material, the AO was justified in taking the said value of ₹ 2,14,495/- as the annual value under section 23(1)(a) of the Act and ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 ₹ 3,16,800/- as such value under section

TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

1) (SC); and LIC Housing Finance Ltd (367 ITR 458) (Bom HC). 10. It is submitted that recently, in Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No 1213/Mum/2018), the Mumbai Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act by observing that since the AO has considered the same issue during

AMAZIA DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

house property was not the subject matter before ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 9. Section 263 of the Act and Explanation (c) there under which are material for consideration on the issue in this appeal and read as under :— "263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.—(1