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

68 relates to payment of service tax. Sub-section (1) thereof stipulates that every person, providing taxable service to any person, shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66B of Finance Act 2012 in such manner, and within such period, as may be prescribed. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 relates to payment of service tax. Sub-section (1) thereof stipulates that every person, providing taxable service to any person, shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66B of Finance Act 2012 in such manner, and within such period, as may be prescribed. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), in respect

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 relates to CGST Act, 2017 (1) Every deposit made towards tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other amount by a person by internet banking or by using credit or debit cards or NEFT or RTGS or by such other mode and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, shall be credited to the electronic cash ledger

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

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,60,000/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that it forms part of the fictitious sales of Rs. 36,82,529/- already added to income, despite both

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 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

1), Mumbai-20 Vs. Dr. Avinash Chandra Tiwari, A-8, Sunder Nagar, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAPT 7886 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Mr. Mehul Shah याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by Ms. Vinita J. Menon : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 21/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख

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

1), Mumbai-20 Vs. Dr. Avinash Chandra Tiwari, A-8, Sunder Nagar, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAPT 7886 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Mr. Mehul Shah याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by Ms. Vinita J. Menon : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 21/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख

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

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

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