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

41. The facts in brief are that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.7,86,000 under Section 80HHC of the Act, on the profits derived from export of goods. The appellant claimed to have computed deduction in the manner laid down under section 80HHC. The AO recomputed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act after making following adjustments

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

1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that other points are available to be raised. Since no other point was urged before the High Court, we find no reason to examine if any other point was available. The appeal is allowed without any orders as to costs.” 2.5. In the light

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

68,000 is apportioned towards deemed dividend as per provisions of section 2(22)(d) of the Act and CAD 7,80,32,000 being in excess of its accumulated profits is offered to tax under the head "Capital Gains". Accordingly, the Bank has offered to tax deemed dividend under section 1158BD of Rs.9

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

41. To conclude, we hold that the provisions of Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. The bad debts written off in debts, other than those for which the provision is made under clause (viia), will be covered under the main part

DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TRANS FREIGHT CONTAINERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Trans Freight R.No.609, 6Th Floor Containers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 72-73, Nariman Bhavan M.K.Road, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact1447P Appellant) .. Respondent)

41(1) of the ITAct,1961, thereafter applied provisions of Section 50C and made an addition of Rs.2,66,12,234/-. 4. By the impugned order, CIT(A) deleted the addition after observing as under:- 5.1.1. Through this ground the appellant objected the AO’s action of applying provisions of section 50C of the IT Act on transfer

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

68,424/-) 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of losses written off of Rs 8,22,59,119/, without appreciating the fact that the same did not fulfill the conditions of deduction of s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s

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

68,424/-) 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of losses written off of Rs 8,22,59,119/, without appreciating the fact that the same did not fulfill the conditions of deduction of s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s

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

41,05,801/-\n50. We also have already adjudicated the issue relating to\ndeduction under section 80G while deciding the corresponding\nground for A.Y. 2017–18. Since the facts and the applicable legal\nprinciples for the year under consideration are identical, we do\nnot consider it necessary to adjudicate the issue separately for\nthis year. The findings recorded

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

68,12,549 USD one million two hundred fifty nine thousand four hundred 5. Total payable forty five only And Rupees five crore sixty eight lakh twelve thousand five hundred forty nine only 21. Schedule–1(A) specified the goods / equipment to be supplied from abroad; Schedule–1(B) specified the goods / equipments to be supplied from employer‟s country

ACIT, CIRCLE - 16 (1), MUMBAI vs. BBC WORLDWIDE MEDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit -16(1), Vs. M/S. Bbc World Wide Room No. 439, 4Th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai – Construction House A, 400 020. Off Linking Road, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2307F Appellant .. Respondent

41(1) and section 28(iv) of the Act. 3. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set-aside and that of the AO be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 2. The Brief facts

OASIS LANDMARKS LLP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

41(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan,\nG Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra\nEast, Mumbai 400051\nRespondent\nAppearance\nFor the Appellant/Assessee\nFor the Respondent/Department\nShri Jeet Kamdar\nShri H.M. Bhatt &\nShri Raj Singh Meel\nDate\nConclusion of hearing\nPronouncement of order\n29.08.2024\n21.11.2024\nORDER\nPer Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:\n1.\nBy way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

41,05,801/- 50. We also have already adjudicated the issue relating to deduction under section 80G while deciding the corresponding ground for A.Y. 2017–18. Since the facts and the applicable legal principles for the year under consideration are identical, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate the issue separately for this year. The findings recorded

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

K. BHATIA CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. AST CIT CIR 19(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

section 68 of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition u/s 41(1) of the Act without

RAJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalraj International Ltd., 701, River Residency, B/H Anjan Salakha Apartment, Athwalines, Surat-395007 Pan: Aaacr5092G ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-4(3) (1), Room No. 649, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ..... Respondent Dy.Cit, Circle-4(3) (1), Room No. 649, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Raj International Ltd., A-1803, Samarpan, Kanakia Spaces, Opp. Magathane, Tel. Exchange Bus Stop, Western Express Highway, Borivali, Mumbai- 400101. Pan: Aaacr5092G ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Dharan Gandhi, Ar Respondent/Revenue By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra, Cit-Dr

section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Rs. 21, 29,115/- (ii) Addition of prior period income. Rs. 41, 60,779/- (iii) Disallowance of exemption u/s 10AA. Rs. 14, 84, 78,993/- (iv) Share application money and share premium u/s 68. Rs. 15, 60, 30,565/- (v) Trade payables u/s 41(1

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai to subscribe to the rights issue is clearly established from the above discussions and illustration. 2.39 Further more, we observed that that Section 68 would not apply to remittances made in India by non-resident is strengthened by the proviso to Section 68 inserted w.e.f

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

41(1) are fulfilled or not. In the case of Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd. vs. ITO (supra). The Tribunal in paragraph 16 of the order has noted that the assessee therein has transferred its deferral sales-tax loan to third party for a consideration which is higher than the amount payable to the Sales-tax Deptt. The Tribunal