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

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

263 of The Income Tax Act with respect to the deduction claimed u/s 36 (1) (viii) of the act. The learned assessing officer while passing an assessment order u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the income tax act has considered the whole issue of the deduction u/s 36 (1) (viii) of the act where the deduction claimed

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

1: On the facts and in circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT has erred in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act. 1.1 The CIT has erred in holding that order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

263\nand therefore, the same is invalid, beyond\njurisdiction and hence barred by limitation.\n\n2. Taxing of income from foreign branches of INR\n26,68,18,55,028\n\n2.1 The learned PCIT erred in directing the AO to\ntax income earned from foreign branches\namounting to INR 26,68,18,55,028.\n\n2.2 The learned PCIT erred

BHUVNESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX P-CIT,MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited Pcit,Mumbai-1 710/A Wing Dattani Plaza Room No. 330, 3 R D Floor, Aayakar Vs. Commercial Premises, Safed Pool, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb4386N

68 could be made in the hence of the assessee with respect to the share capital and premium of ₹ 47 crores. Thereafter the learned AO held by the order passed under section 143 (3) Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited. A.Y. 2010-11 read with section 263 read with section 144 read with section 263 read with section

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We have already held what is erroneous. It must be an order which is not in accordance

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

68 of the Income-tax Act." After considering the reply of the assessee, the Learned CIT held that excessive deduction was allowed under section 80HHC for three reasons namely (i) that the Assessing Officer should have excluded the entire export incentive of Rs. 18,99,015 from the business profits instead of Rs. 18,58,350 being

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

section 80HHC of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the profit earned by valuing finished goods is notional imaginary profit which could not be taxed. In view of the above, it is argued that appreciation in value of investments cannot be taken into account. The netting off of appreciation against the depreciation within a classification is therefore contrary

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

section 68 of\nthe Act. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion the\naddition made by the AO on account of receipt of share\npremium is sustained. The Ground of Appeal No. 2 is\ndismissed.\"\n5.\nAggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), the\nassessee is before us.\n6.\nWe have heard both the parties

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this or reference under

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this or reference under

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

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds

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

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

68,19,755/- the Assessing Officer has observed that the said commission expenses is not genuine in nature. He has alternatively also observed that the commission is subjected to the provisions of TDS. Since the appellant has not deducted or paid the TDS as required by s. 195 of the Act, in view of the provisions of s.40

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

1) of the Act dated 17.04.2017, the assessee filed reply on 03.05.2017. The reply 17.04.2017, the assessee filed reply on 03.05.2017. The reply 17.04.2017, the assessee filed reply on 03.05.2017. The reply relevant to the reason for selection of the ca relevant to the reason for selection of the case on the ground se on the ground of low capital

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the Act („impugned order‟). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. 1. Ground No. 1 – Order passed is bad in law and void ab-initio 1.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not treating

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

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

68,750/- was paid pursuant to a settlement order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India under section 15JB of the SEBI Act, 1992. 36. The assessee further placed reliance on the relevant SEBI and stock exchange circulars, clarifying that such charges are regulatory and compensatory in nature, intended to streamline compliance and discipline in the functioning

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