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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 132(4) of the IT Act, he IT Act, this amount of jewellery is offered to this amount of jewellery is offered to tax. Smt. Suman Gupta ITA Nos. 3860 & 3859/M/2018 7.2. The submission of the assessee is considered but not 7.2. The submission of the assessee is considered but not 7.2. The submission of the assessee is considered

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

36(thirty six) months commencing from June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2011 @ Rs. 15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) per sq. ft. on built up area, amounting to. Rs. 35,595/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five only) per month in advance subject to deduction of tax at source. CAM charges shall be payable from June 1

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

36(thirty six) months commencing from June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2011 @ Rs. 15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) per sq. ft. on built up area, amounting to. Rs. 35,595/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five only) per month in advance subject to deduction of tax at source. CAM charges shall be payable from June 1

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

36(thirty six) months commencing from June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2011 @ Rs. 15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) per sq. ft. on built up area, amounting to. Rs. 35,595/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five only) per month in advance subject to deduction of tax at source. CAM charges shall be payable from June 1

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

36(thirty six) months commencing from June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2011 @ Rs. 15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) per sq. ft. on built up area, amounting to. Rs. 35,595/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five only) per month in advance subject to deduction of tax at source. CAM charges shall be payable from June 1