EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

68,52,014/- thereby wrongly treating the Appellant a Cooperative Bank instead of Cooperative Society and overlooking the fact that the deduction u/s Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed in the previous years including AY 2017-18.\n2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in denying deduction u/s Section

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

270A of the Act- Ground 3 & 4. 2. The assessee is a company incorporated in Hong Kong. The assessee has set up of project office in India for which it had obtained certificate of establishment of place of business in India from Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The assessee is engaged in rendering offshore drilling services to Oil and Gas Exploration

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act. Since the present three appeals preferred by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 involved identical issues arising from common factual matrix the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of the present common order. With the consent of both the sides we would

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act. Since the present three appeals preferred by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 involved identical issues arising from common factual matrix the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of the present common order. With the consent of both the sides we would

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act. Since the present three appeals preferred by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 involved identical issues arising from common factual matrix the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of the present common order. With the consent of both the sides we would

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act. Since the present three appeals preferred by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 involved identical issues arising from common factual matrix the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of the present common order. With the consent of both the sides we would

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act. Since the present three appeals preferred by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 involved identical issues arising from common factual matrix the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of the present common order. With the consent of both the sides we would

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act. Since the present three appeals preferred by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 involved identical issues arising from common factual matrix the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of the present common order. With the consent of both the sides we would

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act. Since the present three appeals preferred by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 involved identical issues arising from common factual matrix the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of the present common order. With the consent of both the sides we would

MORGAN STANLEY MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

section 270A of the Act for under- reporting of income. reporting of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, amend The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, amend The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, amend or withdraw any or all of the above grounds of appeal

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

68,52,014/- thereby wrongly treating the Appellant a Cooperative Bank instead of Cooperative Society and overlooking the fact that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed in the previous years including AY 2017-18.\n2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in denying deduction u/s 80P(2

RITESH SINGH ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TREND ELECTRONICS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) (in short the ‘Act’) for AY 2018-19. 2. The core issue The core issue arising in these appeals is narrow and legal arising in these appeals is narrow and legal in character, namely, in character, namely, whether the learned CIT(A) CIT(A) was justified in not adjudicating

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

270A of the Act. XXV. Penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) on disallowance on deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) 3. Relevant grounds for each of the assessment years, both in the case of appeals by assessee and by Revenue for each of the issue is tabulated while dealing with that issue (including additional grounds, if any). We will deal with these above

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT) TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

b) of sub-section(2) of section 44BB Relevant extract of the ruling is as under 18. Apart from that in the case of the assessee itself the Tribunal have consistently has been holding that service tax being in the nature of statutory payment does not involve any element of profit therefore, cannot be included in the gross

MRIDULA JHA JENA,MUMBAI vs. INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD, 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

270A of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation.” 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2013-14 on 29.07.2013 declaring an income of Rs.6,89,690/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued