“Section 10(15)”

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

claimed as exempt under section 10(23G) of the Act. As per the\nassessee, it is the gross receipt which is exempt under section 10(15) and\nsection 10(23G) of the Act, as it has not incurred any direct expenditure in\nearning this income.\n5.\nThe Assessing Officer ... under\nsection 10 of the Act and only the net receipts would be allowed as an\nexemption, the AO restricted the exemption under section 10(15) and section\n10(23G) of the Act to the total amount of Rs.5,49,48,220 as against the claim\nof Rs.45 lakh

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

claimed as exempt under section 10(23G) of the Act. As per the\nassessee, it is the gross receipt which is exempt under section 10(15) and\nsection 10(23G) of the Act, as it has not incurred any direct expenditure in\nearning this income.\n5.\nThe Assessing Officer ... under\nsection 10 of the Act and only the net receipts would be allowed as an\nexemption, the AO restricted the exemption under section 10(15) and section\n10(23G) of the Act to the total amount of Rs.5,49,48,220 as against the claim\nof Rs.45 lakh

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

adjustment made to the arm's length price in respect of back\noffice support services.\n2. Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15),\n10(34) and 10(35)-\nDisallowance u/s. 14A: Rs.37,99,40,048\n[Para 4.5, pages 28 and 29 of the CIT(A) order ... expenses at Rs. 48,32,00,000 as against\n10,32,59,952 made by the Appellant to the income exempt under section 10(15),\n10(34) and 10(35) of the Act by applying provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962.\n3. Disallowance

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

adjustment made to the arm's length price in respect of back\noffice support services.\n2. Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15),\n10(34) and 10(35)\nDisallowance u/s. 14A: Rs.37,99,40,048\n[Para 4.5, pages 28 and 29 of the CIT(A) order ... expenses at Rs. 48,32,00,000 as against\n10,32,59,952 made by the Appellant to the income exempt under section 10(15),\n10(34) and 10(35) of the Act by applying provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962.\n3. Disallowance

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

price at 1,84,16,207 as against 2,07,44,132 made by the TPO. 2. Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35)-Disallowance u/s. 14A: ₹33,49,50,562 [Para 27, page 15 of the CIT(A) order] On the facts ... apportionment of expenses at ₹44,89,00,000 as against 11,39,49,438 made by the Appellant to the income exempt under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act by applying provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Disallowance

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

price at 1,84,16,207 as against 2,07,44,132 made by the TPO. 2. Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35)-Disallowance u/s. 14A: ₹33,49,50,562 [Para 27, page 15 of the CIT(A) order] On the facts ... apportionment of expenses at ₹44,89,00,000 as against 11,39,49,438 made by the Appellant to the income exempt under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act by applying provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Disallowance

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

assessee claimed exemption of 263,78,71,983/-, comprising— interest income of ₹ ₹136,28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income ... that an assessee engaged in insurance (Bom), wherein it was held that an assessee engaged in insurance business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

assessee claimed exemption of 263,78,71,983/-, comprising— interest income of ₹ ₹136,28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income ... that an assessee engaged in insurance (Bom), wherein it was held that an assessee engaged in insurance business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

assessee claimed exemption of 263,78,71,983/-, comprising— interest income of ₹ ₹136,28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income ... that an assessee engaged in insurance (Bom), wherein it was held that an assessee engaged in insurance business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

assessee claimed exemption of 263,78,71,983/-, comprising— interest income of ₹ ₹136,28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income ... that an assessee engaged in insurance (Bom), wherein it was held that an assessee engaged in insurance business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15

LINTAS EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSISTANCE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Lintas Employees Health Income-Tax Officer, Assistance Trust Ward – 25(2)(1), 13Th Floor, Express Towers Mumbai Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aaatl0325M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Prakash Jotwani & Ms Priya Gada, Advocates Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Hyderabad Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1074797264(1), Dated 21.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By The Central Processing Centre Of The Department, Bengaluru (Cpc) U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 12.05.2020 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1: Erred In Not Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case & Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 964 Days In Filing The Appeal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENT LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

LINTAS EMPLOYEES RECREATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

consideration the assessee has earned income from free bonds to the tune of Rs. 86,851/- and claimed the same as exempt under section 10(15) of the Act. The assessee while filing the return of income has made a suo- motu disallowance of Rs.1,79,463/- being

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

consideration the assessee has earned income from free bonds to the tune of Rs. 86,851/- and claimed the same as exempt under section 10(15) of the Act. The assessee while filing the return of income has made a suo- motu disallowance of Rs.1,79,463/- being

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

consideration the assessee has earned income from free bonds to the tune of Rs. 86,851/- and claimed the same as exempt under section 10(15) of the Act. The assessee while filing the return of income has made a suo- motu disallowance of Rs.1,79,463/- being

LINTAS EMPLOYEES HOBBIES AND CRAFT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee's appeal ITA no

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,\nMUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC)”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER