DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

80M was in respect of dividend received by a domestic company from another domestic company. The extent of the deduction was, however, subject to a monetary ceiling, the ceiling being that the deduction should not exceed the amount distributed by way of dividend on or before the due date for the filing of return. The Assessing Officer by adverting

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

80M was in respect of dividend received by a domestic company from another domestic company. The extent of the deduction was, however, subject to a monetary ceiling, the ceiling being that the deduction should not exceed the amount distributed by way of dividend on or before the due date for the filing of return. The Assessing Officer by adverting

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

80M of the Act. The ground of appeal\nof the Assessee is accordingly allowed.\n56. Ground No. 12 - Disallowance of the provision in respect of ‘Go for Gold\nScheme': Rs. 2 Crores.\n57.\nThe Ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted that the appellant had launched a\nsales promotion scheme called “Go for Gold Scheme” wherein the payment of\nincentive

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABBOTT INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

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

68,13,000, whereas it distributed dividend of Rs. 18,33,61,200 on or before due date of furnishing return of income and hence, eligible for deduction u/s 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 45. We have heard both the parties and perused material available on record. As per the provisions of section

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. WYETH LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS WYETH LEDERLE LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

80M of the Act. 73. In view of above, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that, the deduction claimed u/s 80M in the return of income amounting to INR 57,34,771 should be fully allowed. 74. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: - Cases wherein it is held that only expenditure solely and exclusively incurred

THE DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ICICI BANK LTD ( ERSTWHILE SCICI LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cir.3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant

68,576/- as against the income of Rs.91,76,24,591/- declared originally on 30/11/1996, which was subsequently revised during the assessment proceedings to Rs.70,20,27,400/-. The difference between the assessed and the revised returned income, which is relevant for the present purpose is on account of depreciation on leased assets and partial denial of deduction under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI vs. KHYATI REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh , Jm Dcit, Cir. 6(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Khyati Realtors Pvt.Ltd R.No.522, 5Th Floor 301/68, Manek Bhuvan 1St Hindu Colony Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 014 Pan/Gir No.Aacck4422B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

68,73,511 13,39,92,776 6,14,61,876 3,77,74,902 4,31,15,554 Net Profit ii) In the above table, the AO has considered figures from the Profit & Loss A/c, Amount reflecting as "Profit before taxation" is considered as Gross Profit figure and "Profit after taxation" as Net Profit. Further turnover is stated

CHANDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Chandra Financial Services Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Achal Building, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Income Tax-2(1)(1), 21, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001

sections 234A, 234B and 234D inasmuch as - (a) the Assessing Officer has not given an opportunity to the appellants before charging the said interest as required by the principles of nature justice, (b) the charging of interest is not in accordance with law. The appellants crave leave to add to, alter and/or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal

MADHU SARDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

68,050/- ------------------------- Rs. (-) 35368050/- Total no. of Shares 25,000 Value of the Equity Shares (-) Rs.141/95/- per shares Breakup value per share being 80% of above (-) Rs. 1699/13/- As against the same, the assessee has sold the shares @ Rs.100/- per shares which is face value of each equity share.” 6. The assessee also furnished the copy of Income tax return

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

68. As far as the assessee's eligibility for exemption under section 10(23G) of the Act is concerned, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) following CBDT circular no.762 dated 18th February 1998, held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption under section 10(23G) of the Act, since, as per the said circular, a company which has made

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

68. As far as the assessee's eligibility for exemption under section 10(23G) of the Act is concerned, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) following CBDT circular no.762 dated 18th February 1998, held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption under section 10(23G) of the Act, since, as per the said circular, a company which has made

M/S BOFA SECURITIES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS A DSP MERILL LYNCH LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68,430\n0.48%\n10\nGovernment\nOf 55,64,29,100\n25,07,610\n0.45%\nSingapore - E\nTotal/\nArithmetic\nmean\n0.43%\n18. This exercise was done only to simplify the matter and issue\ninvolved without going into other controversies as what should\nbe the appropriate method and also to make proper\ncomparability analysis under CUP, which TPO has also held that

ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOFA SECURITIES INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS DSP MERRILL LYNCH LTD ), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

68,430 0.48% 10 Government Of 55,64,29,100 25,07,610 0.45% Singapore - E Total/ Arithmetic 0.43% mean 18. This exercise was done only to simplify the matter and issue involved without going into other controversies as what should be the appropriate method and also to make proper comparability analysis under CUP, which TPO has also held that

BOFA SECURITIES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DSP MERILL LYNCH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68,430 0.48% 10 Government Of 55,64,29,100 25,07,610 0.45% Singapore - E Total/ Arithmetic 0.43% mean 18. This exercise was done only to simplify the matter and issue involved without going into other controversies as what should be the appropriate method and also to make proper comparability analysis under CUP, which TPO has also held that

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOFA SECURITIES INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S DSP MERRILL LYNCH LIMITED ), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

68,430 0.48% 10 Government Of 55,64,29,100 25,07,610 0.45% Singapore - E Total/ Arithmetic 0.43% mean 18. This exercise was done only to simplify the matter and issue involved without going into other controversies as what should be the appropriate method and also to make proper comparability analysis under CUP, which TPO has also held that

THE DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ICICI BANK LTD (IN RESPECT OF M.S, ICICI LTD. MRGED WITH M.S, ICICI BANK LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Icici Bank Ltd., Circle 3(1), (In Respect Of M/S Icici Ltd Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Merged With M/S Icici Bank Aaykar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Ltd. M K Road, Near Churchgate, Laxmi Commercial Centre, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Behind Nabard Bank, 2Nd Floor, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact1398K (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri Vishwas Munde प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Assessee By : Ms.Arati Vissanji

68,25,97,615/- and the issue with regard to deduction u/s 10(23G) of the Act, we find that section 14A was introduced by the Finance Act, 2001whereas the return of income was filed before 29.11.1997. On the issue of depreciation on lease asset, the same was deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

80M of the Act on the presumption that when the funds available to the assessee were both interest free and loans, the investments made would be out of the interest free funds available with the assessee, provided the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. The resultant SLP of the Revenue challenging the Bombay High Court judgment

SHYAMM MARIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -6(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shyamm Mariwala, Ito Ward-6(3)(3), 216, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400013. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Advpm 4940 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subhash Chhajed, Ar : Revenue By Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

68,64,158/- as on 31.03.2009. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on the decision . Counsel of the assessee relied on the decision . Counsel of the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank South Indian Bank of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

68) d) CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (263 ITR 180) e) ACIT v. Champdany Industries Ltd. (95 ITD 169) (Kol) 7 (g) Reliance is also placed on the decision Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Shri Atul Kumar Swami (ITA 112/2014) (TS-166-HC-2014-Del), wherein it has been held as under: “As to what constitutes