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

iii) or sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance for- (a) industrial or agricultural development; (b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or (c) development of housing in India. 23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified entity and is carrying on 'eligible business

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

iii)\nor sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance\nfor-\n(a) industrial or agricultural development;\n(b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or\n(c) development of housing in India.\n23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified\nentity and is carrying

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

iii)\nor sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance\nfor-\n(a) industrial or agricultural development;\n(b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or\n(c) development of housing in India.\n\n23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified\nentity and is carrying

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

iii) or sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance for- (a) industrial or agricultural development; (b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or (c) development of housing in India. 23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified entity and is carrying on 'eligible business

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

iii) or sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance for- (a) industrial or agricultural development; (b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or (c) development of housing in India. 23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified entity and is carrying on 'eligible business

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

iii)\nor sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance\nfor-\n(a) industrial or agricultural development;\n(b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or\n(c) development of housing in India.\n23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified\nentity and is carrying

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

iii) or sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance for- (a) industrial or agricultural development; (b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or (c) development of housing in India. 23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified entity and is carrying on 'eligible business

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

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

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

TDS provisions at the branch level. The assessee has also suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,36,72,707/- in its computation of income, based on the disclosures made in the Tax Audit Report. 32 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore This action demonstrates the bona fide conduct and good faith

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) raised by the Assessee are allowed and therefore Ground No.1(e) to 1(h) raised by the Assessee are dismissed as being infructuous. Ground

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) raised by the Assessee are allowed and therefore Ground No.1(e) to 1(h) raised by the Assessee are dismissed as being infructuous. Ground

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) raised by the Assessee are allowed and therefore Ground No.1(e) to 1(h) raised by the Assessee are dismissed as being infructuous. Ground

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

iii) of the Act. Section 37 is a residuary section which allows business expenditure in computing residuary section which allows business expenditure in computing residuary section which allows business expenditure in computing the taxable business income of an Assessee. Expenses allowed as the taxable business income of an Assessee. Expenses allowed as the taxable business income of an Assessee. Expenses

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

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

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

ASUDA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

iii) The assessee must have paid interest on the borrowed amount l.e. he has shown the same as an item of expenditure. The above mentioned three conditions have been established legally by Supreme Court judgement in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC). 7) Now, on page 5 para 5.9 of the Assessment Order