The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion was misplaced as it relied solely on the source of funds (own vs. borrowed), ignoring the amended provisions of Rule 8D(2) which include a 1% disallowance on average investment value. However, following precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider only investments yielding exempt income for calculating the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning was misplaced as Rule 8D(2) also includes a 1% disallowance on average investment value, not just interest-bearing funds. However, it directed the AO to consider only investments yielding exempt income for the disallowance computation, following precedent.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the disallowance made under section 14A. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, holding that Education Cess and Higher Education Cess are not deductible expenses in light of Explanation 3 to section 40(a)(ii) and Supreme Court rulings.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the disallowance under Section 14A as the AO had followed prior directions and considered only investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, holding that Education Cess is not deductible as an expenditure under Section 37 read with Section 40(a)(ii) following the Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the amount transferred by Exim Bank to the Central Government was a mandatory transfer of funds under section 23(2) of the Exim Act, 1981, and not a distribution of dividend as per section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, section 115-O was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the dividend distribution tax. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal ruled that the payment to the Central Government was a mandatory transfer under section 23(2) of the Exim Act, 1981, and not a dividend as defined under section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, section 115-O was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the payment made by the assessee to the Central Government was a mandatory transfer of funds as per the Exim Act, not a distribution of dividend as defined in Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, Section 115-O was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the Exim Bank to the Central Government were not dividends as defined under Section 2(22) of the Act, as the Exim Bank's capital is not divided into shares and the Central Government is not a shareholder. Consequently, Section 115-O of the Act, which levies dividend distribution tax, was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the payment by the Exim Bank to the Central Government was a mandatory transfer of funds as per the Exim Act, not a distribution of dividend. Therefore, Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act was not applicable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the payment made by the assessee to the Central Government was a mandatory transfer under section 23(2) of the Exim Bank Act, 1981, and not a distribution of dividend as defined under section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, section 115-O was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the amount transferred by the assessee to the Central Government was a mandatory transfer of funds as per Section 23(2) of the Exim Act, 1981, and not a distribution of dividend under Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, Section 115-O was not applicable.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) restricted the disallowance to 10% of the amount related to the five contractors, amounting to Rs. 16,71,940/-, considering the nature of the jewellery business and the practices of labour contractors.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the First Appellate Authority due to notices being sent to the wrong email address.

The Tribunal held that a jurisdictional issue, concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings due to improper sanction under Section 151, cannot be waived by the assessee, even if initially not pressed before the lower appellate authority. It further held that for AY 2016-17, since the reassessment proceedings (order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148) were initiated after the expiry of 3 years from the end of the assessment year, the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner was required as per Section 151(ii), not the Principal Commissioner. The approval obtained was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were project-specific and did not involve making available technical knowledge, skills, or know-how to the assessee, which would enable them to apply the technology independently. Therefore, the payments did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-Singapore DTAA.

The Tribunal held that for section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The ESOP expenses were held to be allowable under section 37(1). The issue of sales incentives paid to parties prefixed with 'Dr.' was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the Section 14A disallowance, considering only investments yielding exempt income. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ESOP expenditure disallowance, relying on High Court precedent. The issue of sales incentive expenditure was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.