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

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

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

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

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

houses in India for residential purposes. In view thereof, the ld AR\nprayed that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act may be granted in re-\nspect of all the aforesaid three categories of receipts. In this regard reliance is\nplaced on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Standard Refinery & Dis-\ntillery

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

houses\nin India for residential purposes. In view thereof, the ld AR prayed that deduction\nunder section 36(1)(viii) of the Act may be granted in respect of all the aforesaid\nthree categories of receipts. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of the\nApex Court in the case of Standard Refinery & Distillery

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

property and rights of the company: (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

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

property and rights of the company: (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

houses in India for residential purposes. In view thereof, the ld AR\nprayed that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act may be granted in re-\nspect of all the aforesaid three categories of receipts. In this regard reliance is\nplaced on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Standard Refinery & Dis-\ntillery

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

houses in India for residential purposes. In view thereof, the ld AR\nprayed that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act may be granted in re-\nspect of all the aforesaid three categories of receipts. In this regard reliance is\nplaced on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Standard Refinery & Dis-\ntillery

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

houses in India for residential purposes. In view thereof, the ld AR\nprayed that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act may be granted in re-\nspect of all the aforesaid three categories of receipts. In this regard reliance is\nplaced on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Standard Refinery & Dis-\ntillery

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

houses in India for residential purposes. In view thereof, the ld AR\nprayed that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act may be granted in re-\nspect of all the aforesaid three categories of receipts. In this regard reliance is\nplaced on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Standard Refinery & Dis-\ntillery

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

houses in India for residential purposes. In view thereof, the ld AR\nprayed that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act may be granted in re-\nspect of all the aforesaid three categories of receipts. In this regard reliance is\nplaced on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Standard Refinery & Dis-\ntillery

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

36,609 Propety at Lavassa 92 Propety at Lavassa 92 1,71,90,735 1,71,90,735 Property at lavassa 94 Property at lavassa 94 1,71,49,899 1,71,49,899 Property at Alibaug Property at Alibaug 5,02,696 5,02,696 Flat at Pune 20,72,866 20,72,866 50% share in Sakinaka Property

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

1) of the IT Act.\n4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in support of\nthe proposition that even in respect of unsold flats by the developer is liable to be\ntaxed as income from house

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

housing as well as \ndevelopment of infrastructure facility in India. In aggregation, deduction \nclaimed is restricted to special reserve so created in the year. According \nto the assessee, it qualifies as a “specified entity” for the purpose of \nclause (a) of Explanation to section 36(1)(viii), falling within sub-clause \n(vi) as “any other financial corporation including

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

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