ICICI BANK LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

reassessment the A.O noticed that as Section 43D r.w.Rule 6EA interest is not to be offered for taxation with respect

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

43D is also taken into account. [Indwell Constructions Vs CIT: (1998) 232 ITR 776 (Andhra Pradesh)]. 3.24. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has estimated income according to the best judgment under Section 144 of the Act, and thus, opted to substitute the income that is to be computed under Section 29 of the Act by such estimated income

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

43D, Including depreciation allowable under section 32 of the Act even though the assessee has computed the total income under Chapter-VI by disclaiming the current depreciation. Whether the assessee has claimed current depreciation or not has no bearing in determining the quantum of deduction allowable under section 801A, as the depreciation has to be allowed irrespective of whether claimed

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA CONSTRUCTION (DOMBIVALI), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Central Circle-7(3) M/S Lodha Contruction Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. (Dombivali),216, Aayakar Bhavan, Shah & Nahar M.K. Road, Industrial Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Off. Dr.E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan No. Aabfl3409M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R Revenue By : Ms. Aarti Sathe, A.R Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021

reassessment proceedings for two fold reasons, viz (i) that the assessee‟s claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of the “Other incomes” of Rs.23,50,115/- was not as per the mandate of law; and (ii) that the assessee‟s claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) w.r.t the disallowances made in its computation of income

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

DISHA D. KAPASI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2009-10 Disha Devang Kapasi, Acit, Circle – 15(3), 1St B-607, Arihant Bldg., Floor, Matru Mandir, Vs. Sudha Park, Grant Road, Behind Garodia Nagar, Mumbai 400 077 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077

reassess the net 2 commission income of the appellant @2% of the gross value of building material supply bills as against 0.75% as admitted by the appellant without bringing any fresh material on record to substantiate the same. The 3rd ground is that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that appellant had before the AO by letter

SWATI ENERGY & PROJECTS (P) LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

reassessed income and the reasons for reopening the assessment were provided to the assessee which read as under:- “The assessee filed return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 29.09.2010 declaring loss of Rs.3,88,95,318/-. Assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 13.03.2013 determining loss of Rs.3,82,55,515/-. 2. It is seen from the records that the assessee

TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

43D of the Act and the Assessing Officer has applied his mind while completing the re-assessment accordingly. Therefore, the assessee submitted that the order is not erroneous merely because the addition for disallowance / additions made during original assessments are not considered. 8. The CIT, after considering the submissions of the assessee held that – “The matter has been given

TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

43D of the Act and the Assessing Officer has applied his mind while completing the re-assessment accordingly. Therefore, the assessee submitted that the order is not erroneous merely because the addition for disallowance / additions made during original assessments are not considered. 8. The CIT, after considering the submissions of the assessee held that – “The matter has been given

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act dated on 31.12.2019, ld. Assessing Officer mentioned that assessee had disallowed Suo Moto expenses of Rs. 24,88,528/- u/s 14A, meaning thereby that assessee had incurred some expenses, however these have been computed as per Rule 8D. Ld. Assessing Officer relied on Para 39 of Hon'ble Supreme Court