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

1)(b) of the Act. c. the Appeal by the appellant aggrieved by an order of 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

1)(b) of the Act. c. the Appeal by the appellant aggrieved by an order of 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

1)(b) of the Act. c. the Appeal by the appellant aggrieved by an order of 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

1)(b) of the Act. c. the Appeal by the appellant aggrieved by an order of 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

1)(b) of the Act. c. the Appeal by the appellant aggrieved by an order of 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

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

Section 36(1) (viia) does not differentiate between provision on bad assets and provision\non standard assets and the deduction refers to allowable provisions of anticipated default\non the loans and advances made in respect of total assets including standard assets.\ni. Even in respect of assets that are classified as standard assets, a part of the debts are\ndoubtful

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

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

244A of the Act interest in earlier year, the AO is directed to allow the same\nin the year under consideration while arriving at taxable income of the Appellant.\nGROUND NO.4 - Enhancement of income by disallowing alleged delayed payment of\nemployee contribution to Provident Fund (PF) & Labour Welfare Fund (LWF) u/s. 36(1)\n(να)\n1. the CIT (A) erred

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

reassessment or re computation under section 147;\nc. an order being an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A;\nd. an order under section 201;\ne. an order being an intimation under sub-section (6A) of section 206C;\nf. an order under sub-section (1) of section 206CB;\ng. an order imposing a penalty under Chapter

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

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

1) of the Act. The A.O accepted the same and no disallowance was made in the assessment order. He submitted that since, the claim of assessee has been accepted in the past the same cannot be disallowed in the impugned assessment year merely for the reason that the claim was made in the notes to the Return of Income

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

244A Issue demand notice & Challan accordingly.” 8. Accordingly the assessee withdrew the appeal filed before the Tribunal against the order passed under section 263 for reason that the AO while passing order under section 144 r.w.s. 263 has given relief to the assessee assessing the income at Rs. Nil. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not go into the merits

DCIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

244A of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,83,48,328 on the refund referred to in ground no. (6) above due to the Appellant. 8. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to allow the claim of Rs.76,27,772 (towards provision for gratuity and leave encashment) under section 43B of the Act (which was added back

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 are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional the period for determining the additional interest payable to such interest payable to such assessee under this sub assessee under this sub-section, the period beginning from the section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing