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

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A

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

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A

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

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A

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

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A

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

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly: Provided also that where the assessee exercises the option to withdraw the application under sub-section (1) of section 245M, the period of limitation available under this section to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly: Provided also that where the assessee exercises the option to withdraw the application under sub-section (1) of section 245M, the period of limitation available under this section to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

244A of the Act\namounting to Rs. 1,83,48,328 on the refund referred to in ground no. (6) above due to the\nAppellant.\n8. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to allow the claim of Rs.76,27,772 (towards provision\nfor gratuity and leave encashment) under section 43B of the Act (which was added back

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

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled Sauce amount of refund calcuated ar the alb of tired per cont per annum. for the poros to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub- section (1), an additional interest on beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub- section (5) of section

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

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled Sauce amount of refund calcuated ar the alb of tired per cont per annum. for the poros to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub- section (1), an additional interest on beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub- section (5) of section

DCTI-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

244A(1A). The said provision was brought in the statute w.e.f. 01/06/2016 which reads as under:- “In a case where a refund arises as a result of giving effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment

DCIT-3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

244A(1A). The said provision was brought in the statute w.e.f. 01/06/2016 which reads as under:- “In a case where a refund arises as a result of giving effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

244A(1A). The said provision was brought in the statute w.e.f. 01/06/2016 which reads as under:- “In a case where a refund arises as a result of giving effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

reassessment [or fresh order under section section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a , as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a , as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order period of three

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

reassessment [or fresh order under section section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a , as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a , as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order period of three

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

reassessment [or fresh order under section section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a , as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a , as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order period of three

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

244A, reduction of tax credit of Dubai branch, applying incorrect rate of tax on income under MAT and not quantifying the MAT tax credit to be carried forward. Your appellant craves leave to add, to amend and/ or vary the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 4. Brief facts are that the assessee bank had filed

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA , BANK OF BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

244A, reduction of tax credit of Dubai branch, applying incorrect rate of tax on income under MAT and not quantifying the MAT tax credit to be carried forward. Your appellant craves leave to add, to amend and/ or vary the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 4. Brief facts are that the assessee bank had filed