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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

YES BANK LTD.,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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions of section 14A can be invoked when the assessee has investments which have the potentional of yielding exempt income

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions of section 14A can be invoked when the assessee has investments which have the potentional of yielding exempt income

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions of section 14A can be invoked when the assessee has investments which have the potentional of yielding exempt income

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions of section 14A can be invoked when the assessee has investments which have the potentional of yielding exempt income

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions of section 14A can be invoked when the assessee has investments which have the potentional of yielding exempt income

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions of section 14A can be invoked when the assessee has investments which have the potentional of yielding exempt income

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

119 of the Act hereby clarifies that Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs. 10,53,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable in law. The addition is therefore deleted and Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Ground No. 5 – Additional Ground: Claim of Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 78,67,620/- 117. During the appellate proceedings

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

119/- 2. Interest on share application money Rs.56,63,59,478/- 3. Guarantee Commission Rs. 8,77,76,150/- 4. Sale of Shares of Strides SA Pharmaceuticals Pty.Ltd Rs. 1,14,66,873/- Total Rs.66,73,98,920/- 3. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order incorporating transfer pricing adjustments. The Assessing Officer further made the following disallowances

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

section 80HHC of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the profit earned by valuing finished goods is notional imaginary profit which could not be taxed. In view of the above, it is argued that appreciation in value of investments cannot be taken into account. The netting off of appreciation against the depreciation within a classification is therefore contrary

RADHIKA D. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result apples file by the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

section 10(34) 2. Erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 11,91,119/- under section 14A of the Act r.w.r

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section provides the procedure for making the disallowance u/s 14A c) The Hon'ble ITAT Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. & Others in 119