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

TDS) held that the amount paid by the assessee to the allottees was in the nature of interest within the meaning of Section 2(28A) and in terms of Section 194A, tax had to be deducted at source. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same holding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within

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

TDS) held that the amount paid by the assessee to the allottees was in the nature of interest within the meaning of Section 2(28A) and in terms of Section 194A, tax had to be deducted at source. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same holding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within

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

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

TDS) held\nthat the amount paid by the assessee to the allottees was in the nature of interest\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(28A) and in terms of Section 194A, tax had to be\ndeducted at source. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same\nholding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within

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

TDS) held\nthat the amount paid by the assessee to the allottees was in the nature of interest\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(28A) and in terms of Section 194A, tax had to be\ndeducted at source. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same\nholding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within

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

TDS) held\nthat the amount paid by the assessee to the allottees was in the nature of interest\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(28A) and in terms of Section 194A, tax had to be\ndeducted at source. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same\nholding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

36 of 2003),\n(d) in the case of a company governed by any other law for the time being in\nforce, any matters which are not required to be disclosed by that law.\"\n44. The second proviso applies to any insurance company, hanking company\nor any company engaged in the generation or supply of electricity or to any\nother

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

36(1)(viia) of the Act as claimed by the assessee. In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 30 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore Ground 7: Disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.8,10,18,335/- 26. During the year under consideration

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

36(1)(viia)(b) in terms of the observations above.” Respectfully,following the above order of the Tribunal,effective ground of appeal is decided against the AO. ITA/3592/Mum/2013(AY.2009-10): 10.First ground of appeal,filed by the assessee,is about disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.r.8D (2) (ii)of the Rules. Following our order for the last AY.Ground no.1 is decided in favour

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

36(1)(viia) of the Act as claimed by the assessee.\nIn the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed.\nGround 7: Disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nRs.8,10,18,335/-\n26. During the year under consideration, the assessee Bank incurred and claimed\nAdvertisement Expenses, Audit Fees and Law charges

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)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, if this expenditure is incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act, the same shall only be allowed as deduction only against the exempt income u/s 14A of the Act or in other words , such interest

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)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, if this expenditure is incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act, the same shall only be allowed as deduction only against the exempt income u/s 14A of the Act or in other words , such interest

ACIT 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS MAHARASTRA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

TDS. 7. Interest as defined in section 2(28A) of the Act means interest 7. Interest as defined in section 2(28A) of the Act means interest 7. Interest as defined in section 2(28A) of the Act means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt e in any manner in respect

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

TDS. 19. Deduction under section 80-IA in respect of windmills The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of the appellant for deduction under section 80-IA in relation to income from windmills. 20. Dividend distribution tax [DDT] The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the appellant’s claim for refund

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

TDS. 19. Deduction under section 80-IA in respect of windmills The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of the appellant for deduction under section 80-IA in relation to income from windmills. 20. Dividend distribution tax [DDT] The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the appellant’s claim for refund

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3954/Mum/2024

TDS) [2023] 153 taxmann.com 496/294 Taxmann 766/457 ITR 18 (Bom.) wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict

BRIGS TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 14A of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the assessee for assessment year 2008- 09 are that it filed return of income on 29-09.2008 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 141,02,70,137/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short