PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 as per method vide formula laid down under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 to cover administrative and other indirect expenses, which disallowance also we uphold. It is noteworthy that Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 is held

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

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\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

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

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION 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

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(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

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

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

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

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

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. THE 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

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