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

vii) of Rs.250,03,69,520 9.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. CIT ought to have appreciated that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) being a deduction linked to the total income computed is subject to revision each time the total income changes. In the present case, the balance under section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

price. The Mumbai Tribunal held that excess of appreciation over the cost price would not be considered for valuing the closing stock. In the present case, we are not concerned with a scenario where in the State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 later year the depreciation provided in earlier years is reduced. Further, the decision

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

price. The Mumbai Tribunal held that excess of appreciation over the cost price would not be considered for valuing the closing stock. In the present case, we are not concerned with a scenario where in the State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 later year the depreciation provided in earlier years is reduced. Further, the decision

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

1 November 2019, given that Section 92CA(3A) of the Act requires the transfer pricing order to be passed at any time before sixty days prior to the timeline for the assessment order, it is implied that such order must precede 31st December by not less than sixty days, and accordingly, the order passed by learned The is time barred

UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

vii) and\nExplanation to section 9(2). Accordingly, disallowance was made us. 40(a)(i). By\nthe impugned order, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.\n14. It was also argued by ld. AR that Titus being a resident law firm, is liable to\ntax in India. In view of proviso to Section 40(a)(i), in case

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

VII. Please provide the details of any adjustments made to the Please provide the details of any adjustments made to the Please provide the details of any adjustments made to the price of the comparable transaction in terms of Rule price of the comparable transaction in terms of Rule price of the comparable transaction in terms of Rule 10B(1

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36(1)(viia

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36(1)(viia

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

price at which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Transfer 1 day Pricing Order for AY 2011-12 10. Draft Assessment order passed 02.03.2015 on: 11. DRP Directions passed on: 29.12.2015 12. Final Assessment order passed 26.02.2016 on: 14. In view of the aforesaid chronology of events, the ld. Counsel submitted that Section 92CA(3) provides that the ld. TPO order should be passed before 60 days prior

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Transfer 1 day Pricing Order for AY 2011-12 10. Draft Assessment order passed 02.03.2015 on: 11. DRP Directions passed on: 29.12.2015 12. Final Assessment order passed 26.02.2016 on: 14. In view of the aforesaid chronology of events, the ld. Counsel submitted that Section 92CA(3) provides that the ld. TPO order should be passed before 60 days prior

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Transfer Pricing Officer or could be brought to our notice by learned Departmental Representative. On the contrary, on a thorough and careful reading of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), we are of the view that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken pains to examine in detail the alternative benchmarking done by the assessee with foreign comparables and after detailed

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer or assignment of the security arise not from but on account of and\nrepresent the debt claim/security itself.\nThe words in paragraph (4) \"whether or not secured by mortgage and whether or\nnot carrying a right to participate in the debtor's profits\" appear after the opening\nwords \"The term 'interest', as used in this article, means income from

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Pricing adjustments. These grounds are taken up along with the grounds in revenue's appeal which are adjudicated in the later part of this order. Ground Nos.10 and 11 are general not warranting any separate adjudication. I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 – Revenue's Appeal State taxes paid in overseas countries – Ground 1 35. In the computation of income of the assessee, the Assessing

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Pricing adjustments. These grounds are taken up along with the grounds in revenue's appeal which are adjudicated in the later part of this order. Ground Nos.10 and 11 are general not warranting any separate adjudication. I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 – Revenue's Appeal State taxes paid in overseas countries – Ground 1 35. In the computation of income of the assessee, the Assessing

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer or assignment of the security arise not from but on account of and\nrepresent the debt claim/security itself.\nThe words in paragraph (4) \"whether or not secured by mortgage and whether or\nnot carrying a right to participate in the debtor's profits\" appear after the opening\nwords \"The term 'interest', as used in this article, means income from

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer or assignment of the security arise not from but on account of and\nrepresent the debt claim/security itself.\nThe words in paragraph (4) \"whether or not secured by mortgage and whether or\nnot carrying a right to participate in the debtor's profits\" appear after the opening\nwords \"The term 'interest', as used in this article, means income from

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions