YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

43B but upheld the disallowance of Rs.9,75,96,266/- under Section 36(1)(va), as well as the interest levied under Section 234C. Being dissatisfied with the order, both the assessee and the revenue have filed appeals before us. ITA 1093/Mum/2025 (Assessee’s Appeal) 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed a Paper Book comprising pages

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the\nliability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning\non or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\nRule 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of\nthe assessee of a previous

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the\nliability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning\non or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\nRule 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of\nthe assessee of a previous

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non- \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

sections 30 to 43A and,\ntherefore, unless there was a specific\nprohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be\njustified in. adding back the amount under\nrule 5(a), Therefore, even if the debit for\namortization is considered as an\nexpenditure, there is no specific prohibition\nagainst allowing such an expenditure\nunder the provisions of sections

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

43B of the Act (which was added back in\nthe computation of income), in the event the deduction claimed in the successor company (on\naccount of reversal thereof) is not allowed in the assessment of that Company.”\n3. The revenue has taken following grounds:\n“i. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was ntime, section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred

DCIT CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was ntime, section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was ntime, section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was ntime, section 38 of the Sales Tax Act was amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of amended which provides that where the NPV of deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred tax as may be prescribed was paid, the deferred

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 38, MUMBAI

reassess\nthe Assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-HHC in light of the\nprinciples laid down by the Hon'ble Apex courtin Shah Originals Vs.\nCommissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai24. Specifically, the AO should\nexamine whether the profits for which the Assessee is claiming deduction\nhave a direct and immediate nexus with the business operations

THE DY CIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOUROUS LTD., MUMBAI

reassess\nthe Assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-HHC in light of the\nprinciples laid down by the Hon'ble Apex courtin Shah Originals Vs.\nCommissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai24. Specifically, the AO should\nexamine whether the profits for which the Assessee is claiming deduction\nhave a direct and immediate nexus with the business operations

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

reassess\nthe Assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-HHC in light of the\nprinciples laid down by the Hon'ble Apex courtin Shah Originals Vs.\nCommissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai24. Specifically, the AO should\nexamine whether the profits for which the Assessee is claiming deduction\nhave a direct and immediate nexus with the business operations

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation, void ab initio and should are barred by limitation, void ab initio and should be quashed.” 6. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the admission of the assessee’s plea under Rule 27. admission

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation, void ab initio and should are barred by limitation, void ab initio and should be quashed.” 6. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the admission of the assessee’s plea under Rule 27. admission