M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

deduction of under section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\"\n\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

deduction of under section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\"\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

deduction of under section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

deduction under section 80IA of the Act by following our decision while deciding similar 51 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. issue raised by the assessee in its appeal being ITA no.6518/Mum./ 2017. Accordingly, grounds no.1 to 5, are dismissed. Whereas, grounds no.6 to 9, are allowed. 68

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section

M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMIITED ,MUMBSI vs. DY CIT(APPEAL)-RANGE-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

deductions under section 80JJAA of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I AND II AS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I AND II AS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I AND II AS MENTIONED ABOVE: MENTIONED ABOVE: GROUND NO. X: INTEREST ON REFUND U/S 244A OF GROUND NO. X: INTEREST ON REFUND U/S 244A OF GROUND NO. X: INTEREST

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

deduction under Section 80JJAAon the gross total income of INR 11,12,68,378/ income of INR 11,12,68

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

68,58,216 as per assessment order dated February 21, 2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act for AY 2014-15, thus resulting in excess allowance of Rs. 250,03,69,520. 8.3 The deduction

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

deduction. The assessee firm submitted that since, interest paid on capital of partners is only a statutory allowance allowable under the provision of sec. 40(b) of the Act, same cannot be held as an expenditure incurred for earning of an exempt income under the ambit of Section 14A of the Act. The assessee firm submitted that interest paid

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

deduction. The assessee firm submitted that since, interest paid on capital of partners is only a statutory allowance allowable under the provision of sec. 40(b) of the Act, same cannot be held as an expenditure incurred for earning of an exempt income under the ambit of Section 14A of the Act. The assessee firm submitted that interest paid

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

68,25,97,659/- was granted u/s 80IA of the Act , which included a deduction of Rs. 20,39,98,805/- u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of Jojobera 67.5 MW power generating unit. The difference between the amount of deduction claimed in respect of Jojobera 67.5 MW power generating undertaking

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

deduction under Section 80IA of the Act) and taxable book profit of Rs 366,30,21,560 under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. The tax liability on the book profits amounted to Rs 30,82,43,264. During the subject assessment year, an amount of Rs 11,11,09,816 was withheld at source and advance

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

M/S. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

deduction under section 80HHC. 68. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

deduction claimed under section 80HHE by the Assessee while concluding the assessment under section 143(3). The Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the Assessing Officer. 5 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 4. The Ld.CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee except for treatment of rent and interest ‘Income as income from other sources

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. - Vaporub-Tin Unit INR 74,75,679/- - Vaporub-Others Unit INR 88,74,151/- - Whisper Unit INR 1,51,80,215/- - Whisper e-Line Unit INR 16,68