DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

35D of the act GROUND no VI :-disallowance of QIP expenses by invoking Section 40 (a) (i)/(ia) of the act ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in disallowing the expenses

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

35D of the act GROUND no VI :-disallowance of QIP expenses by invoking Section 40 (a) (i)/(ia) of the act ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in disallowing the expenses

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

35D of the act GROUND no VI :-disallowance of QIP expenses by invoking Section 40 (a) (i)/(ia) of the act ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in disallowing the expenses

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

35D of the act GROUND no VI :-disallowance of QIP expenses by invoking Section 40 (a) (i)/(ia) of the act ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in disallowing the expenses

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

section 36(1)(ii) of the Act.\n9.3.2 The appellant has also distinguished the decision of Punjab and Haryana High\nCourt in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) relied upon by the Pr. CIT in his\norder under section 263 of the Act. In that case, the capital of the Petitioner\nCorporation was provided by the Union of India

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

35D\nDisallowance of bad-debts pertaining to Credit Card\nDisallowance of interest on perpetual bonds\nDisallowance of amortization of premium on HTM\nInvestments\nDisallowance of broken period interest\n\nRs.1,21,33,428/-\nRs.21,81,59,726/-\nRs.1,65,89,79,547/-\nRs.2,87,11,074/-\nRs.10,21,58,858/-\nRs.58,17,20,221/-\nRs.1,85,57,53,425/-\nRs.1

INTEGRID MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 35D(2) in the impugned assessment year. The Assessing Officer after verifying the details of expenditure claimed as preliminary expenses found that they are not in the nature of preliminary expenses as envisaged u/s.35D(2). Accordingly, he disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction under the said provision after allowing amount to the extent expenditure admissible u/s.35D

TRENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T.-2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation claim of ₹.281,250/-on intangible assets - non-compete fees. 2) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹.147,635/- (i.e. 1/5th of ₹.738,189/-) incurred towards preferential issue of shares and ₹.185,640/- (i.e. 1/5th of ₹.928,198/-) towards warrant issue claimed u/s 35D of the Act. 3) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

AKRY ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

35D, section 338, section 4448, section 44DA, section 508, section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80JJAA, section 92F, section 115JB, section 115JC and section 115VW of the Act are proposed to be amended accordingly. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2020 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2020-21 and subsequent assessment years

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

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

depreciation and investment allowance of earlier years in respect of the new industrial undertaking, ship or approved hotel will be taken into account in determining the quantum of deduction admissible under the new section 80- I even though they may have been set off against the profits of the taxpayer from other sources." 22. We are not agreeing with

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

35D of\nthe Act in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the issue of\nGlobal Depository Receipts issue and allotment of 43,42,676 equity shares.\"\n2.\n“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred\nin directing the AO to allow depreciation claimed by the assessee

RAYMOND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. -2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation for any year are also far in excess of amount invested from time to time in such investments and accordingly, the learned Assessing Officer was not justified in making the aforesaid disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3 ITA NO. 2660& 2519/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Raymond Limited 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing

M/S. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation for any year are also far in excess of amount invested from time to time in such investments and accordingly, the learned Assessing Officer was not justified in making the aforesaid disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3 ITA NO. 2660& 2519/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Raymond Limited 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( FORMERLY BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

Section 35D of the Act in respect of 1/10th of the GDR issue \nexpenses. \n \n14. 4. We note that the Tribunal has dismissed identical ground raised by \nthe Revenue in appeals preferred for Assessment Years 1998-1999 \nto 2002-2003: \n \n(a) AY 2002-03 (ITA No.2899/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024) \n(b) AY 2001-02 (ITA No.4372/Mum/2005, dated 23/02/2024

YES BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

35D of the Act, that the deduction claimed in computation of income was part of the notes forming part of return of income, that the reopening was based on change of 1991 & 2021/M/15-Yes Bank opinion,thus reassessment on mere change of opinion was bad in law,that the re-opening was based on audit report. It relied upon the cases

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 37(1) of the Act? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in concluding that the addition was contrary to the real income theory, without appreciating that Rule 6EA mandates recognition of accrued interest on specified NPAs, even in the absence of actual receipt, for computing income under the Act? 3.Whether

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 37(1) of the Act? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in concluding that the addition was contrary to the real income theory, without appreciating that Rule 6EA mandates recognition of accrued interest on specified NPAs, even in the absence of actual receipt, for computing income under the Act? 3.Whether

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

depreciation of respective units which is contrary to the provisions of above section. (e) Erred in direction the A.O. to grand deduction u/s 80HH & 80IAby including duty draw back. and interest which is contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in sterling Foods Ltd. (237ITR 579). (f) Erred in direction the A.O. to exclude Sale Tax and Excise Duty from