DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

14A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are invoked in this case……....”. 14 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 17. From the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for rejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

14A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are invoked in this case……....”. 14 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 17. From the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for rejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

1). In case, the assessing officer is not, on the basis of objective criteria and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, he shall have to reject the claim and state the reasons for doing so. Having done so, the assessing officer will have to determine the amount of expenditure

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, 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

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

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

TATA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2(3), MUMBAI

14A of the\n26\nAct to INR 6,88,73,913/- being the amount of exempt income\nearned by the Appellant for the relevant previous year. As\nregards, the disallowance of INR 14.09 Crores, we find that the\nCIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to compute the\ndisallowance in terms of Rule 8D of the IT Rules

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

14A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are\ninvoked in this case .........\".\n17.\nFrom the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for\nrejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation and not on\nactual. However, it is noticed that the AO while rejecting the suo-motu\ndisallowance has not given

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

14A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are\ninvoked in this case ........”.\n14\nITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/2023 & 2971-2970/M/2023\nSmall Industries Development Bank of India\n17.\nFrom the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for\nrejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation and not on\nactual

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

14A. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the relief in respect of addition made U/s. 69C under other expenditure. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” ITA 660/Bang/2015 (Assessee’s Appeal) Ground No.1: Addition on account of recoveries made out of bad debt written off – Rs.13

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

14A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are\ninvoked in this case .........".\n\n17.\nFrom the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for\nrejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation and not on\nactual. However, it is noticed that the AO while rejecting the suo-motu\ndisallowance has not given

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

TDS is deducted on the interest paid and interest is debited to P&L account\n• the bond holders have no right to participate in management of the bank\nThe appellant had submitted that the bonds of Rs. 1,680 Crores outstanding\nas on 31.03.2016 have been redeemed as under:\nPerpetual Bonds – IPDI Series I\n400.00\n24-07-2017\nPerpetual

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

TDS provisions at the branch level.\nThe assessee has also suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,36,72,707/- in its\ncomputation of income, based on the disclosures made in the Tax Audit Report.\nThis action demonstrates the bona fide conduct and good faith of the assessee in\ncomplying with statutory requirements.\nWe find merit in the submissions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS. Being AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 19 above. 22. On perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act shows that on first page

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS. Being AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 19 above. 22. On perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act shows that on first page

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS. Being AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 19 above. 22. On perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act shows that on first page

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that\nat the time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued\na Notification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR\n(Stat) 106] which reads as under:-\nIncome-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3) (iii) (f) Notification