DCIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Circle-2(3)(1) Tata Steel Limited 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bombay House, 24, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai, Gpo, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb1247M (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Assessee By Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2026

68 are required to be added to book profit as per the provisions of section 115JB(2) for correct computation of MAT liability? 5. The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the grounds of appeal as above. 4 Tata Steel Limited 7. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative

AVINASH CHANDRA TIWARI,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O.11(2)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of the revenue are dismissed

68. 3. By the impugned order the CIT(A) gave part relief after observing as under :- 2.2.5 Facts and material on record are considered. It is seen from the details filed by Appellant that agricultural income from financial year 2000- 2001 to financial year 2003-04 was nearly Rs.10 lakhs out of which agricultural income of two years

ITO 11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. AVINASH CHANDRA TIWARI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of the revenue are dismissed

68. 3. By the impugned order the CIT(A) gave part relief after observing as under :- 2.2.5 Facts and material on record are considered. It is seen from the details filed by Appellant that agricultural income from financial year 2000- 2001 to financial year 2003-04 was nearly Rs.10 lakhs out of which agricultural income of two years

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2) , MUMBAI

68 relates to CGST Act,\npayment of service tax.\n2017\nSub-section (1) thereof\nstipulates that every\nperson, providing\ntaxable service to any\nperson, shall pay\nservice tax at the rate\nspecified in section 66B\nof Finance Act 2012 in\n(1) Every deposit made\ntowards tax, interest,\npenalty, fee or any\nother amount by a\nperson

SEADRILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 relates to\npayment of service tax.\nSub-section (1) thereof\nstipulates that every\nperson,\nproviding\ntaxable service to any\nperson, shall pay service\ntax at the rate specified\nin section 66B\nof\nFinance Act 2012 in\nsuch manner, and within\nsuch period, as may be\nprescribed.\nNotwithstanding\nanything contained in\nsub-section (1), in\nrespect

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INT. TAXATION)RANGE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 4 of the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

68 of erstwhile Service\nTax law and Section 49 of CGST Act, the comparison is given herein below.\n\nService Tax\n\nGST\n\nSection\n68 relates\nto CGST Act,\n2017\n(1) Every deposit made\ntowards tax, interest,\npenalty, fee or any other\namount by a person by\ninternet banking or by\nusing credit or debit cards

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

68 relates to payment of\nservice tax. Sub-section (1)\nthereof stipulates that every\nperson, providing taxable\nservice to any person, shall pay\nservice tax at the rate specified\nin section 66B of Finance Act\n2012 in such manner, and\nwithin such period, as may be\nprescribed. Notwithstanding\nanything contained in sub-\nsection (1), in respect of such

BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

68,920/-. Therefore, in view of the said circumstances we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the expenditure to earn the exempt income. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.” 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking

BLUE DART EXRESS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

68,920/-. Therefore, in view of the said circumstances we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the expenditure to earn the exempt income. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.” 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

68,920/-. Therefore, in view of the said circumstances we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the expenditure to earn the exempt income. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.” 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

68,920/-. Therefore, in view of the said circumstances we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the expenditure to earn the exempt income. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.” 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking

ACIT, CC-44, MUMBAI vs. SHILPA SUNIL MAJITHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

68, बनाम/ M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 Shanti Kutir,Opp. Andheri Fire Vs. Bridge, S. V. Rd., Andheri (W), Mumbai-58 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABPM 432 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & ""या"ेप सं. /C.O. No. 72/Mum/2010 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 5141/Mum/2009) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02) बनाम/ Shantikumar D. Majithia

ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. MUKUND KISHEN ADAK, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4557/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

268A of the Act. 5. Now we shall take up the appeal in ITA 4557/Mum/2012 Only issue raised in the sole ground of appeal is against the 6. confirmation of addition of Rs.9,87,200/- by ld.CIT(A) on account of unexplained income added by the AO on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee

MUKUND K ADAK,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O.23(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4557/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

268A of the Act. 5. Now we shall take up the appeal in ITA 4557/Mum/2012 Only issue raised in the sole ground of appeal is against the 6. confirmation of addition of Rs.9,87,200/- by ld.CIT(A) on account of unexplained income added by the AO on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee