LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

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

35. In the case of CIT vs. ICC India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble High Court has held that share application amount was a capital receipt and was never received towards trading purpose and, therefore, the question of applicability of section 41(1) does not arise. The High Court has, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Although

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

iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à-vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

68. Now, the appeal for 2017-18. 69. Ground No.IV relates to disallowance of claim made u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. This issue we have already discussed in detaile while dealing with the appeal for the A.Y.2016-17 and also the amendment brought in Rules w.e.f. A.Y.2017-18. Since we have set aside this issue to the file

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

35. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that - (i) These expenses in comparison to total expenses (i.e. Rs. 3,636.75 crores) are minuscule, which comes to around only 0.02% of our total expenditure. (ii) That expenses attributable to the earlier years but crystallize in the year under consideration on receipt of M/s. Asian Paints invoice/bills ought

ACIT -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HIKAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

section (4) of section 10A section 10A, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of segregating the profits of the busin segregating the profits of the business into export profits and ess into export

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

35,01,455/- in the normal computation of total income and further same was also added to the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. iii. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets of ₹27,31,73,482/- was allowed instead of depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹7,74,20,633/-. iv. Disallowance of club membership

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

iv) It means that Bhanwarlal Jain Group companies are providing only accommodation entries and no genuine transactions. In the light of the above facts, the Ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.25 lakhs taken as loans/advances as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix

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

FDC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NARESH KUMAR BALODIA PR -CIT -1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the order under Section 263 of the Act passed by the learned PCIT on 22ndMarch 2022 for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrirahul Chaudhary, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Fdc Limited Income Tax–I, Fdc Limited 142–148, Room No. 330, Fdc Limited 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Vs. Jogeshwari (West), Mk Road Mumbai 400102 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacf0253H Assessee By : Shri K Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2022

68,13,150/-. The same was assessed under Section 143(3) read with section 144C (3) of the Act at the total income of ₹182,31,81,338/-. The learned PCIT examined the record, he found thatAssessee claimed deduction under Section 35(1)(iv

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. S I GROUP INDIA LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Si Group India Limited Large Taxpayer Unit – 2 Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area World Trade Centre Thane – Belapur Road Centre 1, 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai – 400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Si Group India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Large Taxpayer Unit Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Mumbai Thane – Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Vivek A. Perampura

Section 35(1)(iv) refers to expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research related to the business carried on by the assessee. Sec. 35(2B) refers to expenditure, other than capital expenditure incurred on the acquisition of any land or building or construction of any building, on scientific research undertaken under a programme approved in that behalf

SI GROUP INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Si Group India Limited Large Taxpayer Unit – 2 Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area World Trade Centre Thane – Belapur Road Centre 1, 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai – 400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Si Group India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Large Taxpayer Unit Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Mumbai Thane – Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Vivek A. Perampura

Section 35(1)(iv) refers to expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research related to the business carried on by the assessee. Sec. 35(2B) refers to expenditure, other than capital expenditure incurred on the acquisition of any land or building or construction of any building, on scientific research undertaken under a programme approved in that behalf

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

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

68,31,954/- during\nthe year ended 31.03.2017 and, out of abundant caution,\ndisallowed 30 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 50,49,586/-\nunder section 40(a) of the Act in A.Y. 2017–18 (a copy of the\nstatement of computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was placed\non record). It was further submitted that

SI GROUP INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Si Group India Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.D-2/1, Ttc Income Tax, Industrial Area, Ltu, Mumbai Thane-Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7323L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Si Group India Limited Income Tax, Plot No.D-2/1, Ttc Industrial Centre-1, 29Th Floor Area, World Trade Centre Thane-Belapur Road Cuffe Parade, Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai-400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7323L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing 17/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

68 comparables, whose average margin was determined at 6.69%, the ld TPO made an adjustment on the entity level costs of the assessee at Rs 45.78 crores. The ld DRP observed that before the ld TPO, the assessee relied on internal segmental profitability by bifurcating its profits in respect of its 3 units located at Rasai, Navi Mumbai and Lote

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1