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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

36(1) (viia) of Rs. 14, 61, 00,000/-.\nix. Therefore, the reopening of assessment has become bad in law and should be quashed.\nNow the issue has been decided in favour of assessee by the Ld. CIT (A)\nrelying on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter\n15.\nMetals Ltd. vs. ACIT

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

36(1) (viia) of Rs. 14, 61, 00,000/-.\nix. Therefore, the reopening of assessment has become bad in law and should be quashed.\nNow the issue has been decided in favour of assessee by the Ld. CIT (A)\nrelying on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter\n25\nITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others\nM/s

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

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (para 12) 3.1. In view of the factual matrix and following the aforesaid decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in the absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by either side, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and affirmed the same

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

CITIZENCREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (HILL ROAD BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-WARD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS.\n8.3\nThe provisions contained in section 194A, to the extent relevant for the\ninstant appeal, read as under:\n“[Interest other than “Interest on securities”.\n194A. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is\nresponsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than\nincome by way of interest

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

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