“disallowance under section 14A”

DCIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. 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)

assessee under sub-clause (1), no further disallowance was warranted under sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed at Rs.1,17,99,604.  The assessee filed the revised working of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act during ... assessment proceedings as certain investments were inadvertently considered as yielding exempt dividend income when filing the Return of Income, whereby the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was computed at Rs. 1,14,95,165/-. 5. However, the ld. AO did not accept the assessee’s computation

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

assessee under sub-clause (1), no further disallowance was warranted under sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed at Rs.1,17,99,604. • The assessee filed the revised working of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act during ... assessment proceedings as certain investments were inadvertently considered as yielding exempt dividend income when filing the Return of Income, whereby the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was computed at Rs. 1,14,95,165/-. 5. However, the ld. AO did not accept the assessee's computation

The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

assessee under sub-clause (1), no further disallowance was warranted under sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed at Rs.1,17,99,604. • The assessee filed the revised working of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act during ... assessment proceedings as certain investments were inadvertently considered as yielding exempt dividend income when filing the Return of Income, whereby the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was computed at Rs. 1,14,95,165/-. 5. However, the ld. AO did not accept the assessee's computation

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icic Bank Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri. Gagan Goyal ()

against Rs.223,49,79,266/- as claimed by the 3 ITA 1762/Mum/2013 M/s ICICI Bank Ltd Assessee. Thus, the net disallowance under section 14A consequent to CIT(A)’s directions was computed to the tune of Rs.114,23,98,147/- as against the amount Rs.211,68,34,691/- made ... already filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT against the order of the then CIT(A). The Assessee further claimed that disallowance under section 14A, in fact, is an issue involving legal interpretation and rejection of legal claim will not attract levy of penalty, in view of the judgment

Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

Appeal) AY: 2005 -06: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. In upholding, in principle, the learned AO's action for disallowance under section 14A of the Act and enhancing the disallowance computed by the learned AO. In disallowing the salary paid to expatriate employee of the Indian

DDIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai vs. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are also partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.8841/Mum/2010 The Bank Of Nova Scotia Vs. Assistant Director Of Mittal Towers, B Wing Income Tax (It) -3(2) Nariman Point Scindia House Mumbai – 400 020 Ballard Pier Mumbai – 400 038 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb1536H Appellant .. Respondent It(Tp)A. No.3862/Mum/2013 The Bank Of Nova Scotia Vs. Additional Director Of Mittal Towers, B Wing Income Tax (It) -3 Nariman Point Air India Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb1536H Appellant .. Respondent Ita.No.3989/Mum/2012 Deputy Director Of Income Vs. M/S The Bank Of Nova Tax (It) -3(2) Scotia, Mittal Towers, B Scindia House Wing, Nariman Point Ballard Pier, N. M. Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 038

applicable. ITA No. 5740/Mum/2011 (Assessee’s Appeal) AY: 2005 -06: “1. In upholding, in principle, the learned AO's action for disallowance under section 14A of the Act and enhancing the disallowance computed by the learned AO. 2. In disallowing the salary paid to expatriate employee of the Indian branches

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

ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 back of shares of ₹65,62,50,000/- was upwardly revised by ₹5,82,51,214/-. ii. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per Rule 8D by computing the total disallowance of ₹1,182,24,87,180/- and further rejecting suo moto

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

course of assessment proceedings the assessee claimed that it has not incurred any expense for earning exempt income. Accordingly it claimed no disallowance under section 14A of the Act is called for. In the alternative, it was submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A should not exceed exempt income. The Assessing ... learned CIT(A) also did not accept the contentions of the assessee. However, he accepted alternative contentions of the assessee that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the amount of exempt income and directed the AO accordingly. 6.2 We heard the parties on this