DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

6. Ground Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case Ground Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case Ground Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the exemption w/s. 10

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

6. Ground Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case Ground Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case Ground Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the exemption w/s. 10

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

6 against the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of the act, the learned CIT – A the first assessment for assessment year 2003 – 2000 for was passed under section 143 (3) wherein for the first time the claim of exemption under section 10 B of the assessee was disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

6 against the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of the act, the learned CIT – A the first assessment for assessment year 2003 – 2000 for was passed under section 143 (3) wherein for the first time the claim of exemption under section 10 B of the assessee was disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

6 against the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of the act, the learned CIT – A the first assessment for assessment year 2003 – 2000 for was passed under section 143 (3) wherein for the first time the claim of exemption under section 10 B of the assessee was disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

6 against the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of the act, the learned CIT – A the first assessment for assessment year 2003 – 2000 for was passed under section 143 (3) wherein for the first time the claim of exemption under section 10 B of the assessee was disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

6 against the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of the act, the learned CIT – A the first assessment for assessment year 2003 – 2000 for was passed under section 143 (3) wherein for the first time the claim of exemption under section 10 B of the assessee was disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

6 against the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of the act, the learned CIT – A the first assessment for assessment year 2003 – 2000 for was passed under section 143 (3) wherein for the first time the claim of exemption under section 10 B of the assessee was disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

6 against the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of the act, the learned CIT – A the first assessment for assessment year 2003 – 2000 for was passed under section 143 (3) wherein for the first time the claim of exemption under section 10 B of the assessee was disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As it appears from the facts on record, the Assessing Officer while computing deduction under section 10(23G) has presumed that the entire investment for infrastructure was out of borrowed funds which according to us is not correct. In our view, only those expenditure directly relatable

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BSR AND COMPANY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. We further note that this issue is covered by the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Limited [2011] 13 taxmann.com 13 reproduced below:- “14……… As far as the second exception mentioned in Sec.9 (1) (vii) clause (b) is concerned viz., “for the purposes of earning any income from

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BSR AND CO., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. We further note that this issue is covered by the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Limited [2011] 13 taxmann.com 13 reproduced below:- “14……… As far as the second exception mentioned in Sec.9 (1) (vii) clause (b) is concerned viz., “for the purposes of earning any income from

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BSR AND CO. LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. We further note that this issue is covered by the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Limited [2011] 13 taxmann.com 13 reproduced below:- “14……… As far as the second exception mentioned in Sec.9 (1) (vii) clause (b) is concerned viz., “for the purposes of earning any income from

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 ()

vii. Depreciation Depreciation Rs. 50,00,000 b. Rule 8D(2)(ii) Rule 8D(2)(ii) Rs. 1,16,79,947 c Rule 8D(2)(iii) Rule 8D(2)(iii) Rs. 1,07,39,195 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law and without 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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

6. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of ₹1026,23,30,375/- 6.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of ₹1026,23,30,375 under section 36(1)(vii) being the amount of bad debts written-off (other than in respect of rural advances) 6.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on explanation 2 to section

ACIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD (NOW KNOWN AS HDFC LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D in respect of negative income – Ground No.8 (vii) Denial of exemption under section 10 towards dividend income, interest income from tax free bonds and income from pension line of business – Ground No.11 to 13 3 ITsA1775 & 1848/Mum/2023 HDFC Life Insurance Co Ltd 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of life insurance which includes

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LIFE INUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D in respect of negative income – Ground No.8 (vii) Denial of exemption under section 10 towards dividend income, interest income from tax free bonds and income from pension line of business – Ground No.11 to 13 3 ITsA1775 & 1848/Mum/2023 HDFC Life Insurance Co Ltd 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of life insurance which includes

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of ₹1026,23,30,375/-. 6.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of ₹1026,23,30,375 under section 36(1)(vii) being the amount of bad debts written-off (other than in respect of rural advances) 6.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on explanation 2 to section