ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

14A cannot be read into in section 115JB for the following reasons: i. Section 115JB is a complete code in itself and it overrides all other provisions of the Act . The book profit is deemed to be total income of assessee and provides mechanism for computing such book profit and consequential tax liability thereon. He , inter-alia, relied

BAJAJ CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”), and tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”), and that expenditure relating to office infrastructure, rent, salaries, that expenditure relating to office infrastructure, rent, salaries, that expenditure relating to office infrastructure, rent, salaries, depreciation

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURE CONSUMER LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FUTURE CONSUMER ENTERPRISES LIMITED ), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation on the right so acquired as intangible asset.” 8. Following the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal again decided the issue in favour of the assessee in assessment year 2012–13, while disposing off the Revenue’s appeal in ITA no.5162/Mum./2016, dated 14th March 2018. There being no material difference in facts involved in the impugned assessment year, the decision

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

14A of the Act read with Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules sustained by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 raised\nby the Assessee is, therefore, allowed and Ground No. 4 raised by\nthe Revenue is dismissed.\nAdditional Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee\n5. By way of Additional Ground No. 1, the Assessee has raised a fresh

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL -JOINT -DEPUTY-ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- ITO, DELHI

depreciation were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim under Section 72A(4). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the Assessee's appeals were partly allowed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 14A

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation was allowed. The grounds related to book profits were dismissed as academic.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "Rule 8D", "Section

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. In reply thereto, the Assessee submitted reply letter, dated 13/12/2017, wherein it was, inter alia, contended as under: a. The Assessee had not incurred any direct expenditure for earning the exempt income. b. The Investments were made out of surplus funds generated from time to time. In support

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 (1) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short `IT Rules'] (ii) Addition taking deemed annual letting value of the immovable properties lying vacant during the relevant previous year at INR.23,28,000/- (iii) Denial of claim of set off of accumulated loss of INR.12,86,53,730/- and unabsorbed depreciation

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.0 Your appellant craves leave to add amend, alter, delete and/or modify any of above grounds of appeal on or before the final date of hearing of this appeal petition.” Brief Facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a private limited company, and filed its revised return of income

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A of the Act. IV. Discount on grant of stock options (ESOP/ESOS) to employees. V. Computation of amount eligible for deduction u/s. 80M of the Act. VI. Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A of the Act. IV. Discount on grant of stock options (ESOP/ESOS) to employees. V. Computation of amount eligible for deduction u/s. 80M of the Act. VI. Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A of the Act. IV. Discount on grant of stock options (ESOP/ESOS) to employees. V. Computation of amount eligible for deduction u/s. 80M of the Act. VI. Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A of the Act. IV. Discount on grant of stock options (ESOP/ESOS) to employees. V. Computation of amount eligible for deduction u/s. 80M of the Act. VI. Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid

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

depreciable immovable property, were also set aside to the AO for de novo consideration, allowing them for statistical purposes. Additional ground regarding Section 14A

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed. Ground No.3 to 8 11. Ground No.3 to 8 raised by the Assessee pertain to the addition of INR.1,00,19,00,000/- made in respect of Delayed Payment Charges. 11.1. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed. Ground No.3 to 8 11. Ground No.3 to 8 raised by the Assessee pertain to the addition of INR.1,00,19,00,000/- made in respect of Delayed Payment Charges. 11.1. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A of the Act Ground No.2 Ground No.2 while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act Disallowance of depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A of the Act Ground No.2 Ground No.2 while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act Disallowance of depreciation