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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 27. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to the issue, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.2709,78,23,972, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. In the notes to the computation of income filed along with the return

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 6(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanation (b) his status was non-resident, therefore, the global income cannot be taxed in India. We, 53 Mr. Binod Kumar Singh therefore, on this issue, affirm the conclusion of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The next ground raised by the Revenue pertains to deleting the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

1) even though there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. As a matter of fact, the word "necessarily" found place in the Income-tax Bill, 1961, but it was dropped at the Legislative anvil [Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. V/s. CIT 118 ITR 261, 275-6 (SC). Therefore, the CIT(A) order is correct to delete

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

1) even though there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. As a matter of fact, the word "necessarily" found place in the Income-tax Bill, 1961, but it was dropped at the Legislative anvil [Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. V/s. CIT 118 ITR 261, 275-6 (SC). Therefore, the CIT(A) order is correct to delete

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JUICY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Section\n11538 of the Act. However, since the entire business loss of\nRs.14,68,364/- is being disallowed in para 6 below of this\norder, no separate addition is being made in this respect. In\ncase, at any of the appellate stages, the disallowance of\nbusiness loss is held to be allowable, then disallowance u/s\n14A of Rs.14,68

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

221/-\nRs.1,85,57,53,425/-\nRs.1,79,32,22,000/-\nRs.37,25,54,316/-\n3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the\nCIT(A) the assessee made a claim that for the purpose of allowing deduction under\nsection 36(1)(via) the rural advances given by Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd.\n(BFIL) an NBFC

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

221/-\nRs.1,85,57,53,425/-\nRs.1,79,32,22,000/-\nRs.37,25,54,316/-\n\n3.\nAggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the\nCIT(A) the assessee made a claim that for the purpose of allowing deduction under\nsection 36(1)(via) the rural advances given by Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd.\n(BFIL