ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

section 14A of the Act. The TD\nof Yes Bank operates from its office in india Bulls Financial Centre which\nalso has its Back Office (\"Back Office\"). The locations is in situated in\nMumbai.\nAs the first step, Yes Bank has identified the specific expenses of the TD\nwhich are incurred in relation to the buying and selling activities

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL -JOINT -DEPUTY-ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- ITO, DELHI

14A and Rule 8D was correctly applied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). 2. Whether the Assessee is entitled to set off accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of a demerged undertaking. 3. Whether the computation of book profits under Section 115JB is correct. 4. Whether the Assessee is entitled to credit of TDS

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

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D\n- Rs.1,19,07,328/-\n(ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP\nRs.\n7,35,861/-\n(iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses\nRs.\n7,50,558/-\n(iv) Difference in TDS

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

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D\n- Rs.1,19,07,328/-\n(ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP\nRs.\n7,35,861/-\n(iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses\nRs.\n7,50,558/-\n(iv) Difference in TDS

YES BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), MUMBAI

section 14A of the Act. The TD\nof Yes Bank operates from its office in India Bulls Financial Centre which\nalso has its Back Office (\"Back Office\"). The locations is in situated in\nMumbai.\n•\nAs the first step, Yes Bank has identified the specific expenses of the TD\nwhich are incurred in relation to the buying and selling activities

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A on the interest component relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend income have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of such interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations and findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt elaborately in the above paragraphs. 13.5. With respect to allocation made

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A on the interest component relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend income have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of such interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations and findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt elaborately in the above paragraphs. 13.5. With respect to allocation made

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A on the interest component relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend income have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of such interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations and findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt elaborately in the above paragraphs. 13.5. With respect to allocation made

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A on the interest component relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend income have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of such interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations and findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt elaborately in the above paragraphs. 13.5. With respect to allocation made

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

TDS and advance tax pertaining to\nthe amalgamated companies and the Demerged Undertaking for the\nrelevant previous year to the Assessee after due verification as per\nlaw. In terms of the aforesaid Ground No.9 raised by the Assessee is\nallowed for statistical purposes.\nGround No.10\n13.\nGround No.10 raised by the Assessee pertains to levy/computation of\ninterest under Section 234B

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly\nallowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

14A by the learned CIT(A) is under\nchallenge before us by the Revenue and has not attained finality.\nThe issue remains sub judice and is actively contested. Therefore, it\ncannot be said, at this stage, that the basis of reopening has been\nfinally removed or accepted by the Department.\n9.13 In such a situation, the reassessment proceedings cannot

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 (1) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

TDS and advance tax pertaining to the amalgamated companies and the Demerged Undertaking for the relevant previous year to the Assessee after due verification as per law. In terms of the aforesaid Ground No.9 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No.10 13. Ground No.10 raised by the Assessee pertains to levy/computation of interest under Section 234B

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed. Ground No.3 to 8 11. Ground No.3 to 8 raised by the Assessee pertain to the addition of INR.1,00,19,00,000/- made in respect of Delayed Payment Charges. 11.1. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed. Ground No.3 to 8 11. Ground No.3 to 8 raised by the Assessee pertain to the addition of INR.1,00,19,00,000/- made in respect of Delayed Payment Charges. 11.1. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing

DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA TELESERVICES (MAH) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-8(3)(1) M/S Tata Teleservices (Mah) Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Ltd., D-26, Ttc Indl Area Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Midc, Sanpada, P.O. Turbhe, Mumbai-20. Navi Mumbai-400703. Vs. Pan: Aaach1458C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Hiten Chande (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

TDS as per the provisions of Section 194H of Income Tax Act, without properly appreciating the factual and legal matrix as clearly brought out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment Order. (ii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,84,00,000/- under section 14A