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. 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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing\nfrom the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:-\n19\nITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/2023 & 2971-2970/M/2023\nSmall Industries Development Bank of India\nThe issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms of\nSection 36

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing\nfrom the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:-\n16\nITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/2023 & 2971-2970/M/2023\nSmall Industries Development Bank of India\n19.\nThe issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms of\nSection 36

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing\nfrom the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:-\n\n19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms of\nSection 36(1)(viii) for the application of the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. KHYATI REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

section 36(2). Learned CIT accordingly deleted the addition/disallowance by holding as under :- 19. I have carefully considered the assessment order and the written submissions of the appellant. The appellant company is engaged in the business of real estate as well as finance services. During the previous year relevant to the present assessment year, the income from operations

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

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

2. The Ld CIT(A)) has erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowane of notional interest of Rs.95,21,457 / on investments in equity shares worked out under Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules 1962 r w Section 14A of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

2. The Ld CIT(A)) has erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance of notional interest of Rs.95,21,457 / on investments in equity shares worked out under Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules 1962 r w Section 14A of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the assessee

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. BRIGGS TRADING CO, P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

2. The Ld CIT(A)) has erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowane of notional interest of Rs.95,21,457 / on investments in equity shares worked out under Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules 1962 r w Section 14A of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the assessee

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