STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

1 (Bom). 43. As regards to the ground Nos. 7 and 8 of the Department’s appeal challenges the finding of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance as per rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and directions in connection with applicability of rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. It was contended that the investments held by 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)

1) of the Act and which may be & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 disallowed .The assessee firm submitted that interest paid to the partner on their capital u/s. 40(b) of the Act cannot be considered as an expenditure in the hands of assessee firm for the purpose of section 14A of the Act as has been clarified by Hon’ble Apex

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)

1) of the Act and which may be & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 disallowed .The assessee firm submitted that interest paid to the partner on their capital u/s. 40(b) of the Act cannot be considered as an expenditure in the hands of assessee firm for the purpose of section 14A of the Act as has been clarified by Hon’ble Apex

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

14A in respect of expenses (other than interest) incurred by the Treasury Division of the Bank to the extent of 1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), 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

14A in respect of expenses (other than interest) incurred by the Treasury Division of the Bank to the extent of 1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease

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

depreciation thereon. 8 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore 4. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liabilities - Rs.6,20,70,000 A. Provision for Leave Fare Concession ("LFC")/ Home Travel Concession ("HTC")- Rx3,62,00,000 a) The learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the provision for LFC/HTC amounting

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

14A in respect of expenses (other than interest) incurred by the Treasury Division of the Bank to the extent of 1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease

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

14A of the Act as per Rule 8D by computing the total disallowance of ₹1,182,24,87,180/- and further rejecting suo moto disallowance offered by the assessee of ₹21,89,85,725/- resulting into net disallowance of ₹1,160,35,01,455/- in the normal computation of total income and further same was also added to the computation

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section section section 14A 14A 14A applies applies applies even even even to to to strategic strategic strategic nce such strategic investment activity is held to be investments, once such strategic investment activity is held to be nce such strategic investment activity is held to be Asia Investments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4529, 6353/MUM/2017, 6209/MUM/2019 part of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

14A\nin respect of expenses (other than interest) incurred by the Treasury Division\nof the Bank to the extent of 1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and\nreduce the total income accordingly.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease

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

depreciation, we\nhave already held that the claim of the assessee is allowable. The matter is\nremanded to the file of the Ld. AO for the limited purpose of verification, and the\nassessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside\nproceedings.\n17. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal

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

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

1), was set aside to the AO for de novo consideration in the interest of natural justice. Grounds 5 and 6, concerning Section 50C on the sale of depreciable immovable property, were also set aside to the AO for de novo consideration, allowing them for statistical purposes. Additional ground regarding Section 14A

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation including statement of\nprofit and loss for such\n18\nI.T.A. No. 424/Mum/2020\nI.T.A. No. 882/Mum/2020\nfinancial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant\nprevious year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause (a), for the purpose

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1% of the exempt interest and dividend income is to be disallowed under section 14A. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that income not yielding any exempt income during the year will not be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A. 4. Depreciation

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1% of the exempt interest and dividend income is to be disallowed under section 14A. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that income not yielding any exempt income during the year will not be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A. 4. Depreciation

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

Bench: us. 2.

1 raised in appeal by the Assessee pertains to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules to the extent sustained by the CIT(A), while Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue pertain to the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule

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

1,68,72,735/- section 10(34) of the Act; (ii) interest income of section 10(34) of the Act; (ii) interest income of claimed exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act; and (iii) long- claimed exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act; and (iii) long claimed exempt under section