STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section (1) of section 115WB. The question whether any particular cost can be arrived, the answer would be 'no' in the instant case because, even according to the assessing authority, the assessee had borrowed only a sum of Rs. 2.54 crore which means the balance of the security (total security Rs. 5 crore) has been given

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section (1) of section 115WB. The question whether any particular cost can be arrived, the answer would be 'no' in the instant case because, even according to the assessing authority, the assessee had borrowed only a sum of Rs. 2.54 crore which means the balance of the security (total security Rs. 5 crore) has been given

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section (1) of section 115WB. The question whether any particular cost can be arrived, the answer would be 'no' in the instant case because, even according to the assessing authority, the assessee had borrowed only a sum of Rs. 2.54 crore which means the balance of the security (total security Rs. 5 crore) has been given

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

6. Excess deduction under section 36(1)(viii) Rs. 138,52,06,494 6.1 According to your goodself the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act should be restricted to Rs.961,47,93,509 as against Rs. 1057,29,83,056 as claimed by Bank in its revised return resulting is access deduction

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

6. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of ₹1026,23,30,375/- 6.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of ₹1026,23,30,375 under section 36(1)(vii) being the amount of bad debts written-off (other than in respect of rural advances) 6.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on explanation

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will

DUCK CREEK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

68,05,543 without even any mentioning the clause of section 143(1) wherein the disallowance is alleged to fall while the Appellant contends that the disallowance is outside the scope of that section. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in giving overriding effect to the procedural provision of section 143(1) disregarding the substantive

ITO (IT)- 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, in DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del), in DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del), in DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del), observed as follows: observed as follows: - “58. Nevertheless

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

1, 2013. Therefore, it is not applicable for the subject\n assessment year 2012-13. So for as the pre-amended section 68 of\nthe Act is concerned, the same cannot be invoked in this case, as\nevidence was led by the respondents-assessees before the Assessing\nOfficer with regard to identity, capacity of the investor as well

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

1,56,73,70,902/- of Rs. Rs.452,89,26,555/-) 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of taxes paid abroad from business income even though the provisions of section 40aii) of the Act are pery clear for not granting

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

1,56,73,70,902/- of Rs. Rs.452,89,26,555/-) 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of taxes paid abroad from business income even though the provisions of section 40aii) of the Act are pery clear for not granting

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, learned AO erred in making addition in respect of loss of Rs.28,47,45,915/- towards transaction in derivatives at Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE') along with notional commission of Rs.2,84,746/- u/s 68 of the Act in the order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating the facts

DCIT (IT)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2866/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit(It)-4(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Reliance Jio Room No. 1712, 17Th Floor, Infocomm Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 3Rd Floor, Maker Point, Mumbai-400021. Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6363G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nimesh Vora/Ms. Moksha Moksha Mehta Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2022 For The Ay 2019-20. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Are As Under: - A. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee By Way Of Royalty U/S 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act, 1961 Read With Article 13 Of The India-Uk Dtaa. B. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld, Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee

Section 9(1)(vi) cannot result in a change. It is imperative that such amendment is brought about in the agreement as well. Any attempt short of this, even if it is evidence of the State's discomfort at letting data broadcast revenue slip by, will be insufficient to persuade this Court to 16 A.Y. 2019-20 Reliance

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

1 is against CPC restricting the claim under Section 80JJAA of the Act amounting to IN Section 80JJAA of the Act amounting to INR 30,10,31,823 to R 30,10,31,823 to the of Rs 6,22,44,207/ the of Rs 6,22,44,207/- and not restricting the claim under and not restricting

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

68,010/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and Intimation Order, dated 21/10/2019, was issued to the Appellant accepting the total Income as returned by the Appellant. However, a demand of INR.2,52,635/- was raised upon the Appellant on account of the following:\n(a) The Appellant had claimed the credit of tax deducted