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

D E R The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17/02/2017 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the addition of Rs.25 lakh made u/s 68 and disallowance of interest paid on the said loan amounting to Rs.1,00,823/- made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), without appreciating the evidences

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

d) We may also point out that decision of this court in Major Metals\nLtd. v. Union of India [20121 19 taxmann.com 1761207 Taxman\n185/[20131 359 ITR 450 Bom. proceeded on its own facts to uphold\nthe invocation of section 68 of the Act by the Settlement\nCommission. In the above case, the Settlement Commission arrived

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

d. In the mercantile system the liability shall be an accrued liability and not a provisional liability to be allowed. Provisions of section 36 (1) (iv) and 36 1(v) allow provisional liabilities but they are subject to certain including applicability of section 438 of the I.T. Act. However, similar provisional liabilities cannot be allowed u/s 37(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

131 or section 133A, as the case may be, on or before the 31st\nday of March of a financial year, in consequence of,-\n(a) a search under section 132 which is initiated; or\n(b) a search under section 132 for which the last of authorisations is executed;\nor\n(c) a requisition made under

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

131 ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 8 following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under: "19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising under section

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

131 ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 8 following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under: "19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising under section

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act in the order under section 147 of the Act without\nappreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in\nderivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee.\n\n3.\nIt is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has\ninadvertently filed

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

131 following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:\n\"19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising under section 14A of the Act with respect to an assessee bank. It further held

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce

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

131\nfollowing the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs.\nCIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:\n\"19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana arising under section 14A of the Act with respect to an assessee\nbank. It further held

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

131 of the Act. With respect to the remaining parties (leaving aside the parties in respect of which PAN was not available), no addition was made under Section 68 on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the documents like ITR and bank statement of the lenders and has submitted PAN of all lenders and the application forms

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

131 of the Act. With respect to the remaining parties (leaving aside the parties in respect of which PAN was not available), no addition was made under Section 68 on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the documents like ITR and bank statement of the lenders and has submitted PAN of all lenders and the application forms

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

68 of the Act. 5.1 For taking up this reassessment proceedings, notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 18.06.2022, for which order under section 148A(d) was passed on 20.07.2022. Subsequently, notice under section 148 was issued on 20.07.2022. Computation of limitation as per decision of, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.15. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case

MEGHJI MANSUKHLAL DODHIA,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

sections": [ "132", "153A", "69D", "68", "271(1)(c)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "292C", "132(4)", "131", "131(1)(d)" ], "issues