KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1)(b

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1)(b

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 3 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1)(b

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1)(b

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1)(b

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

244A of the Act interest in earlier year, the AO is directed to allow the same\nin the year under consideration while arriving at taxable income of the Appellant.\n18\nITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others\nM/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.\nGROUND NO.4 - Enhancement of income by disallowing alleged delayed payment of\nemployee contribution to Provident Fund (PF) & Labour Welfare Fund (LWF) u/s

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

244A of the Act interest in earlier year, the AO is directed to allow the same\nin the year under consideration while arriving at taxable income of the Appellant.\nGROUND NO.4 - Enhancement of income by disallowing alleged delayed payment of\nemployee contribution to Provident Fund (PF) & Labour Welfare Fund (LWF) u/s. 36(1)\n(να)\n1. the CIT (A) erred

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

1) of section 245M, the period of limitation available under this section to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub- section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than

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

1) of section 245M, the period of limitation available under this section to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub- section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Union Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Union Bank Bhavan, Tax, Circle- (Ltu)-2, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G Appellant Respondent

147 dated 18/03/2015 of the Assessing Officer ) and secondly, ITAT order in ITA No. 1827/Mum/2017 dated 3/10/2018. 4. The ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in relation to claim for provision for bad and doubtful debt in the books of accounts of the assessee. The assessee in its return

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Union Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Union Bank Bhavan, Tax, Circle- (Ltu)-2, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G Appellant Respondent

147 dated 18/03/2015 of the Assessing Officer ) and secondly, ITAT order in ITA No. 1827/Mum/2017 dated 3/10/2018. 4. The ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in relation to claim for provision for bad and doubtful debt in the books of accounts of the assessee. The assessee in its return

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS OF ERSTWHILE ING VYSYA BANK LTD.),MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR. - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 244A of the Act to the assesseeon this reason is totally unwarranted. 4.2. It would be relevant to get into the statutory provisions governing refunds and interest thereon. Section 240 – Refund on appeal, etc. Where, as a result of any order passed in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee

DCIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CEAT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

244A(1) granted to the assessee in the proceedings under section 143(1)(a) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under section 143(1)(a) attain finality.” 68. Therefore, while upholding in principle that the amount is to be taxed in the year of granting the refund

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

b). 12.2. There is no dispute on the fact that the exact estimate could not be done by the assessee on the amount of capital gains. The assessee has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Premlata Jalani (supra), wherein view has been taken supporting the claim of the assessee

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

B & D),he stated that the AO could not have charged interest from 01/04/2008,that he should have charged interest from date of regular assessment (29/09/2012) to the date of reassessment(26/03/2014).Referring to the case of Vijay Kumar Saboo(201 taxman 366)of the Hon'ble’ble Karnataka High Court he stated that amendment to section 234 was appli

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

B). Therefore the only issue before the honourable Delhi High Court was whether the warrant issued by the additional director who was not empowered by the central board of direct taxes is a valid warrant or not. The honourable High Court held so only for the reason that there was no authorization by the board in favour of the additional

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

147 professional fees paid and recomputation of deduction u/s 10B to exclude other income 3 154 23-04-2013 To withdraw consequential deduction allowed u/s 10B in view of relief by. CIT(A) depreciation and sales lax incentive claim , 4 154 06-03-2017 To withdraw allowance of mark to market loss on account of derivatives pursuant to ITAT order