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

iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting

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

iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting

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

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

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The AO by relying on the\ndecision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT\nand Anr. Which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India concluded that failure on\nthe part of the assesse is not restricted only to the return

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

iii) to\nSection 14A without establishing that such expenditure was indeed incurred for earning\nexempt dividend income;\nc.\nunder section 14A, it is very much clear that only the expenditure which has been proved\nto be incurred in relation to earning of tax-free income can be disallowed and, the section\ncannot be extended to disallow even the expenditure which

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. 10. The claim for deduction for the „Provision for bad & doubtful debts‟ allowed by way of Intimation Order, dated 28/04/2020, in the case of the Assessee constitutes an incorrect claim apparent from information

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

36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha

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

36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

36(1)(viia) of the Act.\n9. Section 143(1) of the Act as applicable to the relevant assessment\nyear was introduced by way of substitution of the earlier Section\n143(1) by the new Section 143(1) by the Finance Act, 2008. The\nnew Section 143(1) provided for computation of total income after\nmaking the adjustments

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

1) of Section 151 of the Chief Commissioner to the issue of the Notice under Section 148 had not been obtained. or (iii) The Ld AO did not have any "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, within the meaning of Section 147. (iv) The provisions of the first proviso to Section 147 were

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

1) of Section 151 of the Chief Commissioner to the issue of the Notice under Section 148 had not been obtained. or (iii) The Ld AO did not have any "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, within the meaning of Section 147. (iv) The provisions of the first proviso to Section 147 were

NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED (ON BEHALF OF MERGED ENTITY VADINAR OIL TERMINAL LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

36 (1) (iii) of the act\nand the business expediency of such interest\ncannot be determined on the basis of quantum\nincurred. The appellant submits that the entire\namount of interest expenses of Rs. 253.30\ncrores be allowed as claimed, without\nrestricting the amount of interest income of Rs.\n95.38 crores and during the year.\n4. Without prejudice

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 36(1) (viia), the deduction is to be computed before making deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA of the Act. As such 5% of Rs.143,07,03,231/- was also required to be taken in to account while computing the deduction u/s.36(1) (viia). However, this was not done and therefore the same has resulted in underassessment

PRAFUL ARJUN RANE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re- assessment for previous assessment years, c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1) of TOLA apply "notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act." Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time

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

reassessment pending on the date of initiating of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiation u/s 153A of the Act, and in respect of non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. Admittedly in the present case no incriminating material was found during

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

reassessment pending on the date of initiating of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiation u/s 153A of the Act, and in respect of non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. Admittedly in the present case no incriminating material was found during

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

reassessment pending on the date of initiating of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiation u/s 153A of the Act, and in respect of non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. Admittedly in the present case no incriminating material was found during

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

reassessment pending on the date of initiating of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiation u/s 153A of the Act, and in respect of non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. Admittedly in the present case no incriminating material was found during