DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

section 195(2) is not a mere provision to provide information ITO(TDS) so that department can keep track of remittances being made to non-residents outside rather it gets attracted to cases where payment made is a composite payment in which certain proportion of payment has an element of 'income' chargeable to tax in India and payer seeks

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 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

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 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

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

1. ICICI Bank 7,80,32,000 14,26,03,195 6,45,71,195 316,52,79,976 Canada 2. ICICI bank 7,50,00,000 14,58,18,562 442,61,60,143 UK PLC 3. ICICI Bank 122,49,51,818 359,13,68,448 236,64,16,630 237,60,91,268 Eurasia LLC total

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

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 of Rs.10 per share for a premium of Rs.90 per share, which\nproves that assessee

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

68,424/-) 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of losses written off of Rs 8,22,59,119/, without appreciating the fact that the same did not fulfill the conditions of deduction of s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s

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

68,424/-) 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of losses written off of Rs 8,22,59,119/, without appreciating the fact that the same did not fulfill the conditions of deduction of s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s

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

68,424/-\"\n55. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, following the decision of the\nTribunal rendered in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2015-16,\ndeleted the addition made by the AO on this issue and allowed the loss on\naccount of amortisation of investment held in HTM category. Being aggrieved,\nthe Revenue is in appeal before

ITO (IT)- 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

195 of tax Act, 1961 on payments made towards transponder the Income-tax Act, 1961 on payments made towards tax Act, 1961 on payments made towards service charges, treating the same as , treating the same as royalty. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. 2.1 Briefly stated, the assessee is an Indian company engaged in Briefly stated, the assessee

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

68,424/-\"\n55. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, following the decision of the\nTribunal rendered in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2015-16,\ndeleted the addition made by the AO on this issue and allowed the loss on\naccount of amortisation of investment held in HTM category. Being aggrieved,\nthe Revenue is in appeal before

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

195, wherein it has been held that where the names of the shareholders are given, the department cannot treat such subscription of shares as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act of the recipient company. Further, reliance in this regard is also placed on the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v Steller Investments

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. Sec. 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is used only in s. 195

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. Sec. 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is used only in s. 195

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. Sec. 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is used only in s. 195

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

195 (SC)!. (Emphasis supplied) 63 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. 3.10. If the aforesaid position of law is kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal, one clear fact is oozes out that the assessee duly discharged its onus as cast upon by section 68 of the Act, because, the assessee not only furnished the trail of banking

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)

68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

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)

68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

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