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

iii) to\nSection 14A without establishing that such expenditure was indeed incurred for earning\nexempt dividend income;\nc.\nunder section 14A, it is very much clear that only the expenditure which has been proved\nto be incurred in relation to earning of tax-free income can be disallowed and, the section\ncannot be extended to disallow even the expenditure which

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

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

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The AO by relying on the\ndecision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT\nand Anr. Which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India concluded that failure on\nthe part of the assesse is not restricted only to the return

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

36 of the Bill seeks to amend section 153C of the Income-tax Act relating to assessment of income of any other person. The existing provisions contained in section 153C provide that in the course of an assessment proceeding, in the case of a person in whose case search action under section 132 or action under section 132A have been

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 read with rule 6EA amounting to ₹ 50,596,549/– b. disallowance of write off of credit cards amounting to ₹ 476,331,562/– c. restriction of allowance of deduction u/s 36 (1) (viii

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

36(1)(vii) (ii) Unpaid bonus of Rs.197.18 Lacs remained to be added back whereas deduction of the same was allowed to the assessee on payment basis. (iii) Under assessment of income to the extent Rs.11.07 Crores on account of Excess Deduction of Rs.11.07 Crores u/s 35DDA towards VRS payment (iv) Bad Debts of Rs.492.26 Crores allowed without any documentary

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

u/s 201(1A) also. We hold accordingly.” 24 Thereafter, from paragraph 17.11 the Tribunal dealt with the contentions of the Assessee that the time limit for initiation and completion of the proceedings under Section 201(1) ought to be the period of four years. The cases relied upon have been referred to and in paragraph 17.14 it is held that

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

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, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of loans and advances taken from the group companies of Shri Bhavarlal Jain. The assessee vide reply dated 03/03/2015 claimed that the loan creditor M/s Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd. has informed the assessee that they have received notices u/s 133(6) of the Act and have filed the relevant details

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) of section

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

147 TT] 649) (Kol) - In this case, the assessee advanced secured loans as interest free funds to subsidiary, which was used by it for purpose of business i.e. hospitality business / construction of hotels. The interest on secured loan was denied by AO. The Tribunal, while relying on S. A. Builders Ltd (supra), held that once commercial expediency is established, interest

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

36(1)(iii). 2.1 Without prejudice to the foregoing ground, the Interest amounting to₹ 518,75,84,534 ought to have been allowed under Section 57(iii).” 2.1. Grounds taken by the revenue are reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

36(1)(iii). 2.1 Without prejudice to the foregoing ground, the Interest amounting to₹ 518,75,84,534 ought to have been allowed under Section 57(iii).” 2.1. Grounds taken by the revenue are reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

u/s 201(1A) also. We hold accordingly.” 24 Thereafter, from paragraph 17.11 the Tribunal dealt with the contentions of the Assessee that the time limit for initiation and completion of the proceedings under Section 201(1) ought to be the period of four years. The cases relied upon have been referred to and in paragraph 17.14 it is held that

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

u/s 201(1A) also. We hold accordingly.” 24 Thereafter, from paragraph 17.11 the Tribunal dealt with the contentions of the Assessee that the time limit for initiation and completion of the proceedings under Section 201(1) ought to be the period of four years. The cases relied upon have been referred to and in paragraph 17.14 it is held 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

u/s 143(3) Officer, firstly, made of the Act on 14.03.2016, the A of the Act on 14.03.2016, the Assessing Officer, disallowance of Rs.9,87,88,041/ disallowance of Rs.9,87,88,041/- out of claim of the assessee for out of claim of the assessee for bad debt written off. Secondly, the Assessing Officer made addition bad debt written