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

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 on 'eligible business as provided

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

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 as provided under Section 36

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

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 as provided under Section 36

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

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 as provided under Section 36

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

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 on 'eligible business

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

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 on 'eligible business as provided

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

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 as provided under Section 36

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

iv) Clause (d) is applicable to Non-banking financial company from AY\n2017-18.\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (supra) has held\nthat the PBDD allowed under clause (a) of Sec. 36(1)(viia) refers to 'rural advances'\nonly. In fact the expression \"rural branches\" finds place in clause (a) only

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

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

iv. CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj) (para 15) v. CIT v.Holcim India (P.) Ltd.(I.T.A.No.486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015] 4 ITR-OL 246 (P&H) (para

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)

iv) of the Act is not a standalone section and is a corollary to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act limiting the deduction. Thus, the contention of the & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 assessee firm that interest paid to partner is a statutory allowance and cannot be considered as an ‘expenditure’ as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act for disallowance cannot

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)

iv) of the Act is not a standalone section and is a corollary to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act limiting the deduction. Thus, the contention of the & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 assessee firm that interest paid to partner is a statutory allowance and cannot be considered as an ‘expenditure’ as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act for disallowance cannot

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

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

IV AND V: M/s Yes Bank Ltd. ITA Nos.3501 & 3239/M/2018 GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY INVOKING SECTION40(a)(i)/(ia) OF THE ACT: INVOKING SECTION40(a)(i)/(ia) OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

IV AND V: M/s Yes Bank Ltd. ITA Nos.3501 & 3239/M/2018 GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY INVOKING SECTION40(a)(i)/(ia) OF THE ACT: INVOKING SECTION40(a)(i)/(ia) OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

BALRAJSINGH JAGJITSINGH KHARBANDA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Balrajsinghjagjitsingh Adit, Cpc Bangalore, Kharbanda, Cpc, Bangalore-560500. C/3, Ravi Darshan, Sherly Vs. Rajan Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Adhpk 1733 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh S. Kothari Revenue By : Kamble Minal Mohan, Dr : Date Of Hearing 05/06/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 07/06/2023 Order

36. Expenditure should not be of capital nature Expenditure should not be of capital nature The expenditure should not be of personal nature. The expenditure should not be of personal nature. The expenditure should not be of personal nature. The expenditure should be incurred during the previous The expenditure should be incurred during the previous The expenditure should be incurred

M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP,MENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ The Hon'ble Bombay High Court while deciding the above substantial question of law referred to it by Revenue has held as under :- ―8. The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied