DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

24 ITA Nos. 3674/Mum/2025 and ors. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: tax Act, 1961: Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR expenditure of Rs.24,98,000/ expenditure of Rs.24

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

24)(x) and 36(1) (va) of the Act.\nd.\nAmendment to the provisions of Sec.36 (1) (va) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2021 is\napplicable from assessment year 2020-21 onwards and thus, payments made to\nemployees' contribution to LWF beyond due date specified under the respective Act, but\nwithin due date for filing of return

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 147 are bad in law. 1.2 The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or modify the The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or modify the The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or modify the ground or grounds of appeal before the hearing. ground or grounds of appeal before the hearing. GROUND 2: UPHOLDING

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 147 are bad in law. 1.2 The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or modify the The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or modify the The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or modify the ground or grounds of appeal before the hearing. ground or grounds of appeal before the hearing. GROUND 2: UPHOLDING

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

24,50,45,356/- should have been offered for taxation should have been offered for taxation and against which the bank claims full TDS amount. against which the bank claims full TDS amount. against which the bank claims full TDS amount. However, the assessee bank has claimed full TDS amount in However, the assessee bank has claimed full TDS amount

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

24,50,45,356/- should have been offered for taxation should have been offered for taxation and against which the bank claims full TDS amount. against which the bank claims full TDS amount. against which the bank claims full TDS amount. However, the assessee bank has claimed full TDS amount in However, the assessee bank has claimed full TDS amount

SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section\n2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of\nthe identity indicating the name and address of the person making such\ncontribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.”\nIt can be noticed that the anonymous donations received by a charitable\ntrust is made taxable u/s 115BBC of the Act. However, if the trust

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

24,273/-.\"\n\nAdditional ground\n\"1.\nThe notice u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law as the\nreopening is pursuant to the search of third party, and\ntherefore the provisions of section 153C of the Act ought\nto have been invoked.\"\n\n3.\nAdditional Ground and Ground No. 1\nThe Additional Ground and Ground No. 1 raised

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

24)(x) and 36(1) (va) of the Act.\nd. Amendment to the provisions of Sec.36 (1) (va) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2021 is\napplicable from assessment year 2020-21 onwards and thus, payments made to\nemployees' contribution to LWF beyond due date specified under the respective Act, but\nwithin due date for filing of return

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section\n2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of\nthe identity indicating the name and address of the person making such\ncontribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.”\n\nIt can be noticed that the anonymous donations received by a charitable\ntrust is made taxable u/s 115BBC of the Act. However

VIIKING MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) CENTRAL CIR4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blev. Acit – Central Circle-4(4) Viiking Media & Entertainment Pvt Ltd., 604-065, 6Th Floor, Gateway Plaza, Air India Building Hiranandani Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Central Avenue, Powai, Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aaacj9884E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkant Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Ms. Richa Gulati Department Represented By :

reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date. 4. Although, the ITAT has also referred to its own decision in the case of DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd., which decision is pending consideration in ITA No. 585 of 2013 in this Court, in which a question of law has been framed, the decision

ITO WARD-4(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASHIK WOLLEN MILLS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of revenue is allowed in terms indicated here

reassessment of the assessment year 1994-95, but when faced with the order of the BIFR exempting operation of section 41(1) of the Act, proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, for the same amount of waiver under the same order he made additions in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94, only on the basis of book

H.K.ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and determining the total income at Rs. 61,48,060/- as against returned income of Rs. 29,48,060/- filed u/s. 153A of the Act on 14-02-2019 (same as original return of income). 2. The AO has erred in law and in facts in passing the assessment order and without

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and determining the total income at Rs. 61,48,060/- as against returned income of Rs. 29,48,060/- filed u/s. 153A of the Act on 14-02-2019 (same as original return of income). 2. The AO has erred in law and in facts in passing the assessment order and without

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and determining the total income at Rs. 61,48,060/- as against returned income of Rs. 29,48,060/- filed u/s. 153A of the Act on 14-02-2019 (same as original return of income). 2. The AO has erred in law and in facts in passing the assessment order and without