DINESHKUMAR VERMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KALYAN

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1183/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Dineshkumar Verma, 102, Sai Aashram Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Tejumal Chaki Road, Nr. Sadhubela School, Ulhasnagar, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Tahane 421 001 Pan : Acmpv 7468B बनाम/ Vs.

68 of the Act, the Tribunal deleted the addition by placing reliance of various decisions of the Tribunal holding that where the returns are filed on the basis of income declared under section 44A

MR. TEJSINGH DHANSINGH RAJPUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, ()

68 of the Act, the Tribunal deleted the addition by placing reliance of various decision of the Tribunal holding that where the returns are filed on the basis of income declared under section 44A

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2) , MUMBAI

68 of the Service Tax Act read with Rule\n2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules has been judicially interpreted to mean\nthat if the payer is entitled to realize or recover the same from the\nrecipient, then it can be done only on the basis of a contractual\nunderstanding between the parties There is no statutory basis for\nrecovering

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In pursuance to ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 the said amalgamation the liability for Bonus, Pension, leave encashment, gratuity as appearing in the Books of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited as on August 12, 2010, of Rs. 7,348,424,124 was taken over by ICICI Bank Limited

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

44A or the assessee was under compulsion to dispose of all the non-\nbanking assets under section 9, income earned by the assessee must be treated as\nprofits made from the resale of the stock-in-trade and most be treated as the profits of\nthe money lending business. The revenue further submitted that due to the\namalgamation character

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

44A or the assessee was under compulsion to dispose of all the non-\nbanking assets under section 9, income earned by the assessee must be treated as\nprofits made from the resale of the stock-in-trade and most be treated as the profits of\nthe money lending business. The revenue further submitted that due to the\namalgamation character