M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

capital and interest free loans of the\nassessee exceeded the amounts advanced has to be controverted or disproved\nby the Department.\n4.5 Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position when it is found\nthat there is no nexus proved between funds for lending to infrastructure\nprojects/ investment in tax free bonds and interest bearing funds

M/S. MASHREQ BANK PSC.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) - 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadangshri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2002-03

section 44C of the Act. Thus, in absence of any restriction imposed regarding the limit of expenditure to be allowed, the restriction imposed under the domestic law cannot be read into Article 7(3). 16. There is another aspect to the issue. The contextual interpretation of Article 25 of the Treaty. Article 25 of the Treaty starts with the heading

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

capital asset for the company. The asset which was created belonged to somebody else and the company derived an enduring business advantage by expending the amount. In all these cases, the expense has been looked upon as having been made for the purpose of conducting the business of the assessee more profitably or more successfully. In the present case also

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

capital gain has been assessed in the hands of some of the persons where lands were acquired, such assessment would become patently erroneous, as the basis itself has ceased to exist. Such assessment would, therefore, amount to mistake, which, in our opinion, can be rectified. Similarly, any income assessed may become non-taxable by virtue of retrospective amendment and consequently

DDIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. UBS AG, MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s Cross

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

capital gain is exempt from tax in India. Thus, ground No.1 as raised by the revenue stands dismissed. 9. Now, we come to the second issue taxability of interest income earned in respect of debt securities of Rs.28,23,12,500/-, whether under Article 11 or under Article 7 as held by the AO by treating it as a business

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

section 37(1) and should not\nbe restricted under section 44C of the Act. Respectfully following\nthe decision of coordinate bench and judicial pronouncements\nrelied upon by the assessee, we are in agreement with the\ncontentions of assessee and ground raised by the assessee is\nallowed.\"\nPage No. | 53\n54. Further, the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

capital expenditure. M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Since ITAT has allowed similar amount as revenue expenditure, therefore, consistent with the same we allow same as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 4: Deferred guarantee commission – Rs 1,44,37,836/- 16. Brief facts qua this issue are that, guarantee commission

DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. HONGKONG & SANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

capital expenditure. M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Since ITAT has allowed similar amount as revenue expenditure, therefore, consistent with the same we allow same as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 4: Deferred guarantee commission – Rs 1,44,37,836/- 16. Brief facts qua this issue are that, guarantee commission

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

capital expenditure. M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Since ITAT has allowed similar amount as revenue expenditure, therefore, consistent with the same we allow same as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 4: Deferred guarantee commission – Rs 1,44,37,836/- 16. Brief facts qua this issue are that, guarantee commission

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

capital expenditure. M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Since ITAT has allowed similar amount as revenue expenditure, therefore, consistent with the same we allow same as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 4: Deferred guarantee commission – Rs 1,44,37,836/- 16. Brief facts qua this issue are that, guarantee commission

DBS BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakar Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

section 44C on head office expenses of Rs. 40,13,250/-, disallowed Rs. 7947690/- claim for provision for standard asset written back , allowed only Rs. 6 lakh out of 1/5 of Rs. 30 lakhs for entrance fees paid for corporate club membership, taxed the capital gain

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

44C of the Act. It was submitted that section 44C\nof the Act deals with the allowability of the head office\nadministrative expenses. Accordingly, it was submitted\nthat the expenses incurred by the assessee are out of the\nscope of provision of section 44C as these expenses are\nnot in the nature of general administrative expenses but\nare solely

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

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

Gains of -563,809,000 Business/Profession as per Profit and Loss Account. Add; Inadmissible items 5,795,104,378 Less: Admissible Items{without -4,524,893,777 considering deduction under section 36(i)(vii)(a) and section 44C of the Act) Less; Deduction under section 80 -1,206,122 G Add: Total Business Income

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

section\n44C of the Act. Following the decision of his predecessor-\nin-office, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the\ndisallowance by holding that the expenditure is allowable\nunder section 37(1) of the Act without imposing\nrestrictions contained under section 44C of the Act.\n19. We have considered rival submissions and perused\nmaterial on record. Learned Counsels appearing for the\nparties

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

section 44C of the Act, hence, cannot\nbe claimed as deduction separately. Being aggrieved with\nPage No. 54\nthe aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer, assessee\npreferred appeal before the first appellate authority.\n18. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering\nthe submissions of the assessee in the context of facts\nand materials on record found that identical disallowance\nmade

DOHA BANK , INDIA BRANCHES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)4(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodit(Tp)A Nos.3684 & 3685/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

Capital (P. Ltd.) (2018) 300 CTR 286 (Guj). It was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that for the purpose of working out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) the amount of expenditure by way of interest would be interest paid by the assessee on borrowings minus taxable interest earned during the year. In terms of our aforesaid

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

sections, the same profits shall not be allowed as a deduction under any other provision of this Act for the same assessment year and that in any case the deduction shall not exceed the profits and gains of the eligible undertaking or unit or enterprise or business, as the case may be. Even if Section 10A/Section 10B are construed

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

44C in violation of the provisions of that section and further erred in not giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunityof being heard in the matter and in passing the impugned order without fully appreciating the submissions made and the material placed before it during the course of the hearing. 2. Expenditure debited to Profit and loss account

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) RG-3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Adit (It) 3(1) Vs. The Hongkong & Scindia House, Shanghai Banking R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd N.M.Road, 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Mumbai – 38 Road Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & The Hongkong & Vs. Adit (It) 3(1) Shanghai Banking Scindia House, R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi N.M.Road, Road Mumbai – 38 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

44C of the Act. The ld. AO however, disregarded the contentions of the assessee and observed that these expenses were not debited by the assessee in its profit and loss account and accordingly treated the same as “head office expenses” u/s.44C of the Act. Hence, he disallowed the sum of Rs.4,54,65,934/- in the assessment