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

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

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

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

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)

vi). Hence no addition can be made on issues which are debatable or require further verification of evidences. Ground 6: Without prejudice to Ground 4, the learned PCIT erred in law in setting aside the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act by giving directions to the teamed AD for making an enquiry with respect to claim made

DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN MADHAVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

reassessment notice under section\n148 of the Act on a substantive basis for the assessment year 2009-10, while\nin the year under consideration the said notice was issued on protective basis.\n9.\nThe findings of the AO vide assessment order dated 28/12/2017 passed\nunder section 147 r.w. section 143(3) of the Act, for the assessment year\n2009

TELEFONICA UK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TAX), RANGE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

9(1)(vi) of the Act and also as per India-UK DTAA under Article 13(3). At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands covered in the case of M/s. Telefonica Depreciation Espana SA vs. CIT in ITA No.2657/BANG/2019, 180/BANG/2022& 817/BANG/2022 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2012-13. 3. The brief facts

TELEFONICA UK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TAX), RANGE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

9(1)(vi) of the Act and also as per India-UK DTAA under Article 13(3). At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands covered in the case of M/s. Telefonica Depreciation Espana SA vs. CIT in ITA No.2657/BANG/2019, 180/BANG/2022& 817/BANG/2022 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2012-13. 3. The brief facts

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

9. Your Appellant prays that the disallowance made in the impugned order is invalid and bad in law an order is invalid and bad in law and facts and hence the same may d facts and hence the same may please be deleted. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that during the relevant Briefly stated, facts

AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,USA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX), CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of India-US DTAA. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 5,25,13,416 and INR 5,98,83,720 under section 234A and 2348 of the Act respectively. 11. That

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

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

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

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business deductions and Chapter VI deductions and Chapter VI-A incentives must be respected, and A incentives must be respected, and their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. Accordingly

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

9) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016: Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

9) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016: Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), NARIMAN POINT vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

9 HSBC House One Queen\nStruer New Zealand\nInterest paid/payable on\nnostro accounts\n(See Note\n1 Below)\nVanes\n6,205\n6,205\nOther Method\n(Refer Note 3 below).\n22 The Hongkong and Shanghai\nBanking Corporation Limited, UK)\nnostro accounts\nLevel 24 a Canada Square London\nE1M SHQ\nInterest paid/payable on\n(See Nute\nVerics\n209393\n209,593\nOther

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on case laws. 10. Whether respondent has jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 153A of the Act for the relevant assessment year? Section 153A of the Act read as under : “153A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on case laws. 10. Whether respondent has jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 153A of the Act for the relevant assessment year? Section 153A of the Act read as under : “153A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on case laws. 10. Whether respondent has jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 153A of the Act for the relevant assessment year? Section 153A of the Act read as under : “153A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on case laws. 10. Whether respondent has jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 153A of the Act for the relevant assessment year? Section 153A of the Act read as under : “153A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section