OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

1) starts with "subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63……..". It means that sections 60 to 63 would have overriding effect if there is a conflict between sections 11 to 13 and sections 60 to 63. However, the application under section II is not made subject to section 68

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

11, 12,68,378. 2. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated 30.08.2024 filed Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated 30.08.2024 filed Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated 30.08.2024 filed following additional ground following additional grounds: 3. That the adjustment as made by the CPC reducing the adjustment as made by the CPC reducing the deduction allowable under section 80JJAA

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

11, 2021 issued under section 263 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) received by us on March 20, 2021 for the above mentioned assessment year. As per the said notice, your goodself proposes to revise the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai (Assessing Officer) under section 143(3) read

MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,07,442/- to HRG, it had violated provisions of section 13. Accordingly, he denied benefit of section 11. 11. The assessee made a without prejudice submission before the Assessing Officer that benefit of mutuality may be given and only interest and income from non-members may be assessed (page 15, para 6.17 of 14 Media Research Users

MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (E) RG 1, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,07,442/- to HRG, it had violated provisions of section 13. Accordingly, he denied benefit of section 11. 11. The assessee made a without prejudice submission before the Assessing Officer that benefit of mutuality may be given and only interest and income from non-members may be assessed (page 15, para 6.17 of 14 Media Research Users

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

68 of the Act. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix was considered and finally the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer was affirmed on the ground that the creditworthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transaction were not satisfactorily explained. 2.3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

11. He stated that provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act grants a deduction from the profit of the business in respect of any expenditure not been in the nature of capital expenses or personal expenses laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. He stated that provisions of Section

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

11 of PB. Assessee company has\nfiled Form-2 as per section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (Return\nof allotment) which is statutory document filed before the Registrar of\nCompanies, a copy of which is found placed at page 30 to 33 of PB\nwhich reveals that assessee has shown the allotment of 215000 equity\nshares

DUCK CREEK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

68,05,543 without even any mentioning the clause of section 143(1) wherein the disallowance is alleged to fall while the Appellant contends that the disallowance is outside the scope of that section. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in giving overriding effect to the procedural provision of section 143(1) disregarding the substantive

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

1,68,31,954/- during\nthe year ended 31.03.2017 and, out of abundant caution,\ndisallowed 30 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 50,49,586/-\nunder section 40(a) of the Act in A.Y. 2017–18 (a copy of the\nstatement of computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was placed\non record). It was further submitted that

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

1,56,73,70,902/- of Rs. Rs.452,89,26,555/-) 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of taxes paid abroad from business income even though the provisions of section 40aii) of the Act are pery clear for not granting

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

1,56,73,70,902/- of Rs. Rs.452,89,26,555/-) 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of taxes paid abroad from business income even though the provisions of section 40aii) of the Act are pery clear for not granting

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

68 of the Act in the order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in derivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee. 3. It is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has inadvertently filed

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the 784094- Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, erred in confirming the disallowance of accumulation of income under section 11(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 230,68

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the 784094- Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, erred in confirming the disallowance of accumulation of income under section 11(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 230,68

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the 784094- Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, erred in confirming the disallowance of accumulation of income under section 11(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 230,68

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the 784094- Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, erred in confirming the disallowance of accumulation of income under section 11(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 230,68

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

11,082 4. Total of (ii) & (iii) INR 5,68,12,549 USD 12,59,445 & INR ` 5,68,12,549 USD one million two hundred fifty nine thousand four hundred 5. Total payable forty five only And Rupees five crore sixty eight lakh twelve thousand five hundred forty nine only 21. Schedule–1(A) specified the goods / equipment