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

5 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India balance in the provision for bad & doubtful debits under section 36(1)(viia). The AO noticed that the assessee in the AY 2015-16 has claimed a deduction of Rs. 84,46,95,341/- under section 36(1)(viia

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

5 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India balance in the provision for bad & doubtful debits under section 36(1)(viia). The AO noticed that the assessee in the AY 2015-16 has claimed a deduction of Rs. 84,46,95,341/- under section 36(1)(viia

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassess under unamended section 147, (b) issuance of notice under unamended section 148, (c) in accordance with time limit in terms of unamended section 149 and (d) sanction under unamended section 151 of the Act. 3 ITA Nos.3674/Mum/2025 and ors. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 5. Whether section 3(1

ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

reassessment proceedings to be illegal and bad in law.‖ On the other hand, the revenue has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : ―1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IB

HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

reassessment proceedings to be illegal and bad in law.‖ On the other hand, the revenue has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : ―1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IB

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassess under unamended section 147, (b) issuance of notice under unamended section 148, (c) in accordance with time limit in terms of unamended section 149 and (d) sanction under unamended section 151 of the Act. 3 ITA Nos. 3674/Mum/2025 and ors. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 5. Whether section 3(1

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassess under unamended section 147, (b) issuance of notice under unamended section 148, (c) in accordance with time limit in terms of unamended section 149 and (d) sanction under unamended section 151 of the Act. 3 ITA Nos.3674/Mum/2025 and ors. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 5. Whether section 3(1

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 even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 19. Inevitable conclusion is that High Court has wrongly applied Adani Exports case (supra) which has no application to the case on the facts in view of the conceptual difference between section 143(1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 24 Navnidhi Steel & Engg

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

1) itself provides the adjustment that can be made to book profit and section 115JB Explanation (5) saves the same. 14. We further note that the assessee has quoted following from Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) :- “Inspite of all these procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Companies Act, we find

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)

5. I say that I was under a bonafide belief that the jurisdictional issues concerning the validity of revision proceedings can also be challenged before the learned CIT(A) against the consequential order passed under section 143(1) read with section 263 of the Act since the concluding para of the Order u/s 263 had set-aside the matter

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

1) and (2) shall apply apply apply to to to the the the following following following classes classes classes of of of assessments, assessments, assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of sub to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5

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

1) and (2) shall apply apply apply to to to the the the following following following classes classes classes of of of assessments, assessments, assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of sub to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: tax Act, 1961: Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR expenditure of Rs.24,98,000/ expenditure of Rs.24

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

5% of the total income. Since, in the\npresent case Assessee had returned loss, the Assessee was not\neligible to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act.\nHowever, while processing the return of income the deduction\nclaimed by the Assessee under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the\nreturn of income was allowed and Intimation

SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment cannot be examined in proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. It is well- proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

5) [***] (6) [***] (7) [***] (8) The books of account or other documents seized under sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding thirty days from the date of the order of assessment under section 153A or clause (c) of section 158BC unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

5) [***] (6) [***] (7) [***] (8) The books of account or other documents seized under sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding thirty days from the date of the order of assessment under section 153A or clause (c) of section 158BC unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded