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

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

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

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

reassessment order passed u/s 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the income tax act 1961 considered the following additions:- a. disallowance of interest u/s 43D read with rule 6EA amounting to ₹ 50,596,549/– b. disallowance of write off of credit cards amounting to ₹ 476,331,562/– c. restriction of allowance of deduction u/s 36 (1) (viii

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

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

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

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

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 CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

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 CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaindcit, Circle 3(3) Ms/ Videocon Industires Ltd. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor 171-C, Mittal Court Vs. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan - Aabcv4012H Appellant Respondent

Section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act, an assessee is entitled to deduction of interest payment in respect of capital/amount borrowed for the purpose of business. The expression "purposes of business" is comprehensive enough to cover expenditure of revenue nature as well as of capital nature because both the types of expenditure can be incurred for business purposes

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of loans and advances taken from the group companies of Shri Bhavarlal Jain. The assessee vide reply dated 03/03/2015 claimed that the loan creditor M/s Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd. has informed the assessee that they have received notices u/s 133(6) of the Act and have filed the relevant details

PID P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, made the disallowance of cost of entire purchases made from four parties i.e. (1) Disha Enterprises (2) Manav Impex (3) Dhiren Mercantile P Ltd. & (4) Sachi Mercantile P Ltd. The AO not given any finding on the documentary evidence filed by assessee consisting invoices, delivery challan, bank statement

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

36 (1) (IIA) be held as deductible as claimed. Page 5 of 66 ITA No 778/MUM/2022 Nayara Energy Limited [ On behalfof VadinarOil Terminal Limited] V ACIT Central Circle -2 (1), Mumbai AY 2017-18 7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (A) and the learned AO erred on facts and in law in not allowing the interest expenses

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.45,46,52,295/- is made and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Since the said issue has already been considered by DRP as well as AO, therefore, the said issue

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

ESSAR POWER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction63 contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

36(1)(viia) As seen the assessee has claimed Loss on transfer of retail loan portfolio amounting to Rs 65,51,06,135/-. The sale consideration is Rs 10.08,78,26,826 and the aggregate book value (net of provisions) of such loans stood at Rs 10,74,29,32,961 resulting in a net loss