“disallowance u/s 14A”

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21

Producers Organisation Development Fund (PODF) amounting to Rs. 2,60,59,516/- claimed u/s 36(1)(xii) of the Act. 2. Additional disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. Ground No. 1: During the course of assessment, the AO noticed that assessee has claimed ... decision of ITAT referred above. Therefore, this ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground No. 2: Additional disallowance u/s 14A and additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee that no disallowance can be the assessing officer. 16. During the course of assessment, the assessing

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Producers Organisation Development Fund (PODF) amounting to Rs. 2,60,59,516/- claimed u/s 36(1)(xii) of the Act. 2. Additional disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. Ground No. 1: During the course of assessment, the AO noticed that assessee has claimed

Asstt. Commissiner of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alok Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Alok Infrastructure Income Tax-6(1)(1), Private Limited, 5Th Floor, Vs. 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower-B, M.K. Road, Peninsula Business Park, Mumbai. G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai. Pan : Aagca1949P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nimesh Vora & Ms. Moksha Mehta For Revenue : Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 09-08-2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Revenue Is Challenging The Relief Granted By The Ld.Cit(A) In Respect Of Following Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao):- (A) Addition Made U/S 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟); (B) Disallowance Of Expenses Related To The Assets Sold; (C) Disallowance Of Claim Of Write Off Of Cement Bags.

noticed that the assessee has held investments to the tune of Rs.92.43 crores, but did not make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. When questioned about the same, the assessee replied that it did not earn any exempt income during the year under consideration and hence no disallowance u/s ... taxmann.com 29 (Karnataka) and Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 112 (Kar.), the Ld.CIT(A) held that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is required to be made. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act. 2.2. We heard the parties

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

Less: Exemption of pension business u/s 10(23AAB) 162,73,27,000 Less: Exemption of dividend income u/s. 10(34) (Net of Disallowance u/s 14A) 263,87,88,271 Less: Exemption for interest on tax free bonds u/s.10(15) 17,37,65,963 Add: Negative Reserve ... apply to Insurance business, even when the assessee has claimed exempted income u/s 10 of the IT and has also itself made some disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the return?" 8.1. The relevant facts in brief are that in the return of income, the Assessee did not offer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai. vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

Less: Exemption of pension business u/s 10(23AAB) 162,73,27,000 Less: Exemption of dividend income u/s. 10(34) (Net of Disallowance u/s 14A) 263,87,88,271 Less: Exemption for interest on tax free bonds u/s.10(15) 17,37,65,963 Add: Negative Reserve ... apply to Insurance business, even when the assessee has claimed exempted income u/s 10 of the IT and has also itself made some disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the return?" 8.1. The relevant facts in brief are that in the return of income, the Assessee did not offer