SHALIN TANDON (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI SANDEEP TANDON),MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT -19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3284/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Shalin Tandon Jcit-19(2) (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Sandeep Tandon) Mumbai – 400 021 बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम 147, 4Th Floor Vs. Atlanta, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021. ःथायीलेखासं ःथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं ःथायीलेखासं ःथायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapt-1953-H जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

206C or Section 285B then he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of Rs.100/- for every day during which the failure continues. Similarly, as per the provisions of Section 272A(1)(b), if any person refuses to sign any statement made by him in the course of any proceedings under this Act, which an Income Tax Authority

DCIT, CIR-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LIMITED, MUMBAI CITY

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalita Nos. 2034 & 2035/Mum/2023 (A.Y:1999-2000 &1998-99) Dcit, Circle-3(3)(1), Vs. M/S Sicom Limited, Room No.609, Solitaire Corporate Aayakar Bhavan, Park, Building No.4, M.K. Road, Guru Nanak Marg, Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Midc S.O, Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs5524J Appellant .. Respondent

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub section (1)an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

6. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the unilateral withholding of interest by AO on the perceived delay attributable to assessee is beyond the power conferred in the said section and hence the order passed thereof is liable to be struck down. 7. Without prejudice to the above, interest is compensation for money lying with the department

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

6). In this case, the primary ground of appeal raised by TSWT is reproduced hereunder:\n\"1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred charging tax at maximum marginal rate of 30% on the income of the Appellant excluding dividend resulting into a tax at normal rates of Rs.3

ACIFFT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

6. Coming to the assessee’s appeals the only common issue is whether assessee is entitled for additional interest as per the provisions of section 244A(1A) of the Act. 7. Ld.CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee for additional interest holding that section 244A(1A) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

6. Coming to the assessee’s appeals the only common issue is whether assessee is entitled for additional interest as per the provisions of section 244A(1A) of the Act. 7. Ld.CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee for additional interest holding that section 244A(1A) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f

ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

6. Coming to the assessee’s appeals the only common issue is whether assessee is entitled for additional interest as per the provisions of section 244A(1A) of the Act. 7. Ld.CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee for additional interest holding that section 244A(1A) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RANGE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

6. Coming to the assessee’s appeals the only common issue is whether assessee is entitled for additional interest as per the provisions of section 244A(1A) of the Act. 7. Ld.CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee for additional interest holding that section 244A(1A) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RANGE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

6. Coming to the assessee’s appeals the only common issue is whether assessee is entitled for additional interest as per the provisions of section 244A(1A) of the Act. 7. Ld.CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee for additional interest holding that section 244A(1A) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS OF ERSTWHILE ING VYSYA BANK LTD.),MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR. - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period,— (i) from the 1st day of April of the assessment year

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Union Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Union Bank Bhavan, Tax, Circle- (Ltu)-2, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G Appellant Respondent

6. Now, we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1437/Mum/2013 for AY 2009-10. The grounds raised are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO restricting the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) to the extent of provision made during

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Union Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Union Bank Bhavan, Tax, Circle- (Ltu)-2, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G Appellant Respondent

6. Now, we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1437/Mum/2013 for AY 2009-10. The grounds raised are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO restricting the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) to the extent of provision made during

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than