CIT v. India Advantage Securities Ltd.

HINDUJA FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , RANGE -7(1)(2) (EARLIER DCIT 6(1)), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed and order of Ld

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalhinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aagca0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010- 11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming: I) The Disallowance Made U/S.14A Of The Income Tax Act At Rs.7, 06,985/- As Against Disallowance Of Rs.2, 52,536/- As Computed By The Appellant. The Disallowance Made Of Rs.4, 54,449/- May Please Be Deleted.

…3/MD8/2012 & 1524/Mds/2011. h) Yatish Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 129 ITD 237 i) Apoorva Patni ....... (Pune ITAT), j) Ethio Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Ah’bad ITAT). 5 ITA No. 7154/Mum/2019, AY 2010-11 k) Bombay High Court in India Advantage Securities Ltd. - 380 ITR 471. l) HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT - Bom, High Court, Writ Pet. No.1753 of 2016 m) Gulshan Investments - 142 ITD 89 (Cal. Trib.).” 7. In this regard we have gone through the orders of AO and thereafter order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) as well as submissions made by the assessee appellant. In our opinion position of law is well settled now on this issue an…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…allowed the claim of appellant that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since tax free income had been earned from stock in trade based on decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529} and India Advantage Securities Ltd (380 ITR 471). 1.2 The CIT (A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant without remanding the matter back to AO.” 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds: “1 "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of A.O. regarding the disallowance of…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…allowed the claim of appellant that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since tax free income had been earned from stock in trade based on decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529} and India Advantage Securities Ltd (380 ITR 471). 1.2 The CIT (A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant without remanding the matter back to AO.” 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds: “1 "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of A.O. regarding the disallowance of…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…allowed the claim of appellant that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since tax free income had been earned from stock in trade based on decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529} and India Advantage Securities Ltd (380 ITR 471). 1.2 The CIT (A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant without remanding the matter back to AO.” 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds: “1 "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of A.O. regarding the disallowance of…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…allowed the claim of appellant that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since tax free income had been earned from stock in trade based on decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529} and India Advantage Securities Ltd (380 ITR 471). 1.2 The CIT (A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant without remanding the matter back to AO.” 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds: “1 "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of A.O. regarding the disallowance of…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…TR 81. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that no disallowance under section 14A is warranted, if investments are held as stock-in-trade. In support of his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of CIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd. (2016 380 ITR 471) (Bombay High Court), State Bank of Patiala (78 taxmann.com 3) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), CCI Ltd. vs. JCIT (2012 206 taxman 563) (Karnataka High Court), Oasis Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT (59 SOT 302) (Mumbai Tribunal), Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ld. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3724/Mum/2005 and others) (Mumbai Tribunal), State Bank of Hyderabad (63 taxman…

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

…d by the assessee are stock-in-trade and, hence, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules ought to be made. 44. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. India Advantage Securities Ltd [380 ITR 471] [Bombay High Court]  State Bank of Patiala [78 taxmann.com 3] [Punjab and Haryana High Court] [see pages 647 to 657 of Paper Book – I It was stated by Ld Counsel for the assessee that the appeal filed by the department has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v/s. CIT [402 ITR 640] 48 | P a g e State Bank…

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

…811/-. Here, the ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied on the following decisions: i. Pradeep Khanna vs. ACIT 953 ITR 2015 (Del) ii. Daga Global, 46 ITR (T) 70 (Mum) iii. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Bom) iv. India Advantage Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 471 (Bom) v. Accel Frontline Ltd. 46 ITR (T) 38 (Chennai-Trib) 27. As a without prejudice argument, the assessee states that the average investments of Rs.128.54 crores, adopted by the A.O./ld. CIT(A) should be reduced by following: a) The investments of Rs.163.62 crores in Indian and Foreign Subsidiaries, as stands accepted by the ITAT in its or…

ACIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

…811/-. Here, the ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied on the following decisions: i. Pradeep Khanna vs. ACIT 953 ITR 2015 (Del) ii. Daga Global, 46 ITR (T) 70 (Mum) iii. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Bom) iv. India Advantage Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 471 (Bom) v. Accel Frontline Ltd. 46 ITR (T) 38 (Chennai-Trib) 27. As a without prejudice argument, the assessee states that the average investments of Rs.128.54 crores, adopted by the A.O./ld. CIT(A) should be reduced by following: a) The investments of Rs.163.62 crores in Indian and Foreign Subsidiaries, as stands accepted by the ITAT in its or…

DCIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HIGH SCALE TRADING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. High Scale Trading Pvt. Ltd., Dcit – 3(1)(2) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Office No. 317, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Raheja Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aacch 3689 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramaniyan Department By : Shri Kailash Kanojiya

…ny disallowance u/s. 14A when there was no exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. India Advantage Securities Ltd. [380 ITR 471] wherein it has been held that there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A when there is no exempt income, deleted the disallowance. Therefore, it is submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 3. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused…

DCIT CEN CIR 3(3) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SHAREKHAN LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ld by it as its stock-in-trade. Thus no disallowance of any expenditure under section 14A of the Act could be made in view of the binding decision of this court in CIT v. India Advan tage Securities Ltd. I. T. A. 1131 of 2013 decided on April 13, 2015— [2016] 380 ITR 471 (Bom). However, the Tribunal by the impugned order did not accept the peti tioner's submission on both the grounds. It disregarded the binding deci sion of this court by holding that an earlier decision of this court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom), which was not brought to the notice of this cour…

DCIT CEN CIR 3(3) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SHAREKHAN LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ld by it as its stock-in-trade. Thus no disallowance of any expenditure under section 14A of the Act could be made in view of the binding decision of this court in CIT v. India Advan tage Securities Ltd. I. T. A. 1131 of 2013 decided on April 13, 2015— [2016] 380 ITR 471 (Bom). However, the Tribunal by the impugned order did not accept the peti tioner's submission on both the grounds. It disregarded the binding deci sion of this court by holding that an earlier decision of this court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom), which was not brought to the notice of this cour…

SHAREKHAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ld by it as its stock-in-trade. Thus no disallowance of any expenditure under section 14A of the Act could be made in view of the binding decision of this court in CIT v. India Advan tage Securities Ltd. I. T. A. 1131 of 2013 decided on April 13, 2015— [2016] 380 ITR 471 (Bom). However, the Tribunal by the impugned order did not accept the peti tioner's submission on both the grounds. It disregarded the binding deci sion of this court by holding that an earlier decision of this court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom), which was not brought to the notice of this cour…

SHAREKHAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ld by it as its stock-in-trade. Thus no disallowance of any expenditure under section 14A of the Act could be made in view of the binding decision of this court in CIT v. India Advan tage Securities Ltd. I. T. A. 1131 of 2013 decided on April 13, 2015— [2016] 380 ITR 471 (Bom). However, the Tribunal by the impugned order did not accept the peti tioner's submission on both the grounds. It disregarded the binding deci sion of this court by holding that an earlier decision of this court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom), which was not brought to the notice of this cour…

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai V/S Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai

…ed that no disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D is warranted since the assessee being a banking company holds all its securities as stock–in– trade. In support of such contentions, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) India Advantage Securities, 380 ITR 471’; ii) HDFC Bank v/s CIT, 383 ITR 529; and iii) State Bank of Patiala, 391 ITR 218. 11. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, while deciding similar issue in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009–10, the Tribunal has restored back to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh keeping in view the ratio laid down in certain judicial…

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bank Of Baroda Dcit-2(1)(1) Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bank Of Baroda Dcit-2(1)(1) Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road

…h which controls and monitors the securities from which the tax free income was earned. The CIT (A) should have appreciated as all the assets from which the tax free income has been earned are stock in trade, as held in the case of India Advantage Securities (380 ITR 471). 1.2 Without prejudice to the above contention, even if rule 8D is to be applied, the disallowance can only be nil since the appellant does not hold any investment the income from which does not or shall not form part of total income and the appellant only holds stock in trade. 1.3 Without prejudice to the above contention, the question of disal…

DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GCIL FIANANCE LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Gcil Finance Ltd. बिधम/ Tax-1(1)(2), 579 209-210, Arcadia Bldg, Aayakar Bhavan, 195, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadcg0600Q (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 5686/Mum/2015 AY: 2010-11 DCIT Vs. M/s GCIL Finance Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s GCIL Finance Ltd. बिधम/ tax-1(1)(2), 579 209-210, Arcadia Bldg, Aayakar Bhavan, 195, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AADCG0600Q (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari, D.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by : Shri R.C. Jain, A.R सुनवाई की तायीख / : 07.11.2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा की ता…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2),

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…TR 81. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that no disallowance under section 14A is warranted, if investments are held as stock-in-trade. In support of his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of CIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd. (2016 380 ITR 471) (Bombay High Court), State Bank of Patiala (78 taxmann.com 3) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), CCI Ltd. vs. JCIT (2012 206 taxman 563) (Karnataka High Court), Oasis Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT (59 SOT 302) (Mumbai Tribunal), Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ld. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3724/Mum/2005 and others) (Mumbai Tribunal), State Bank of Hyderabad (63…

ACIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…TR 81. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that no disallowance under section 14A is warranted, if investments are held as stock-in-trade. In support of his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of CIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd. (2016 380 ITR 471) (Bombay High Court), State Bank of Patiala (78 taxmann.com 3) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), CCI Ltd. vs. JCIT (2012 206 taxman 563) (Karnataka High Court), Oasis Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT (59 SOT 302) (Mumbai Tribunal), Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ld. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3724/Mum/2005 and others) (Mumbai Tribunal), State Bank of Hyderabad (63…

ACIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. EDELWEISS FINANCE & INVESTMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, relevant grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

…d excluded for the purpose of quantifying the disallowance which are required to be made under clauses (ii) and (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of the CIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd [380 ITR 471 (Bom)]. After hearing both the parties, we find, the order of the CIT (A) on this issue is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Thus, Grounds no.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. XXXXX 13. The issue raised in Grounds no.2 to 4 of this appeal relates to the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the Act. R…