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

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

43,315/- in respect of such assets given on lease. The AO disallowed the assessee's claim of Rs. 18,72,80,782/- in respect of depreciation on leased assets and CIT(A) also confirmed the same on the ground that bank had not assumed any risk of ownership of the leased assets and was therefore not the owner, held

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

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

68 of the Act is concerned, it is noted that assessee had led\nevidence before AO/Ld. CIT(A) to prove the nature and source of the\ndisputed credit entry. In this regard, it is noted that seven (7) parties\nhas subscribed to share capital of Rs.2.15 Lakhs. That is assessee had\nallotted its shares of face value of Rs.10

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

43. In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016- 17 is partially allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1547/Mum./2023 Revenue’s appeal – A.Y. 2016-17 44. In the appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: - ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 29 “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

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

43. In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016- 17 is partially allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1547/Mum./2023 Revenue’s appeal – A.Y. 2016-17 44. In the appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: - ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 29 “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

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

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

43,092 is\nbad in law and ought to be deleted\n9. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P\n9.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants.\n9.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

43,092 is\nbad in law and ought to be deleted\n9. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P\n9.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants.\n9.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

43,092 is\nbad in law and ought to be deleted\n9. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P\n9.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants.\n9.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

43,97,437/-)\n9. The Ld. CIT (4)'s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be\nset aside.\n10. The appellant prays that the order of CIT (A) on the above grounds be set\naside and that of the AO restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or\nalter any ground

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not referred. 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase 8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets consideration paid for the business is more than