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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

viii).\nWith regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial\nrelief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs.\n50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the\namortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to\nMMRDA. Both the assessee

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

viii).\nWith regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial\nrelief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs.\n50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the\namortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to\nMMRDA. Both the assessee

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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

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

viii).\nWith regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial\nrelief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs.\n50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the\namortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to\nMMRDA. Both the assessee

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

Capital Pharma v. ITO (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 34/2013); • DCIT v. Ananda Marakala (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 1584/2012); • Arcadia Share and Stock Brokers ITA 1871/Mum/2013; • S.S. Networks vs. ITO (ITAT Hyd) (ITA No.478/2013), 8. Addition on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C- Rs. 6,98,56,399 a) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

36(1)(viii). \nVIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. \nIX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on \ndepreciable assets. \nX. Disallowance of FCCB issue expenses. \nXI. Set-off of short-term capital loss. \nXII. Income from India Value Fund.\n\n11 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

VIII, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax, interest or fee; (d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the assessee specifying the Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee under clause (c); and (e) the amount

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad segregated the income and the expenses under 3 categories, i.e.\nincome from housing finance, income from capital gains

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad segregated the income and the expenses under 3 categories, i.e.\nincome from housing finance, income from capital gains

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad segregated the income and the expenses under 3 categories, i.e.\nincome from housing finance, income from capital gains

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad segregated the income and the expenses under 3 categories, i.e.\nincome from housing finance, income from capital gains

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad segregated the income and the expenses under 3 categories, i.e.\nincome from housing finance, income from capital gains

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad segregated the income and the expenses under 3 categories, i.e.\nincome from housing finance, income from capital gains

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

capital gain. viii. Excess allowances of deduction of ₹250,03,69,520/- under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act, where

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(viii) had\nsegregated the income and the expenses under 3 categories, i.e. income from\nhousing finance, income from capital gains