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

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

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

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

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

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-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

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

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

43. Reference was made to the Tax Audit Report placed at page 12 of the factual paper book and to Form 26AS, wherein such DDT was reflected. It was submitted that relevant supporting documents were enclosed as Annexure 2. 44. The learned AR, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the Assessing Officer to verify the said documents

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

43. Reference was made to the Tax Audit Report placed at page 12 of the factual paper book and to Form 26AS, wherein such DDT was reflected. It was submitted that relevant supporting documents were enclosed as Annexure 2. 44. The learned AR, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the Assessing Officer to verify the said documents

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

43. Reference was made to the Tax Audit Report placed at page 12 of the factual paper book and to Form 26AS, wherein such DDT was reflected. It was submitted that relevant supporting documents were enclosed as Annexure 2. 44. The learned AR, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the Assessing Officer to verify the said documents