DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHREE DHOOT TRADING & AGENCIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue [ITA No

171-C, 17th Floor, Mittal Court, C Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 [PAN: AACCS1621C] ……………… Appellant DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai, Room No. 609, 6th Floor, Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh Date of conclusion of hearing : 02.11.2022 Date of pronouncement of order

DHOOT TRADING & AGENCIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3 (3) (1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue [ITA No

171-C, 17th Floor, Mittal Court, C Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 [PAN: AACCS1621C] ……………… Appellant DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai, Room No. 609, 6th Floor, Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh Date of conclusion of hearing : 02.11.2022 Date of pronouncement of order

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I. 15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

IDBI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

section 14A as held by Kolkata tribunal in UCO Bank (ITA No. 1615 /Kol/2016), Delhi tribunal in case of Punjab National Bank (ITA No. 5481 /Del/2014 and Nice Bombay Transport (P) Ltd reported vide (175 ITD 684). IDBI Bank Ltd (AY’s 2008-09, 2011-12 to 2013-14) 12. In without prejudice submission, the learned AR submitted that

ASIA INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed partly

section 14A can be made in respect\nof which no exempt income was received by the appellate during the\nyear under consideration.\n\n4. Without prejudice to the Ground nos.1,2 & 3, in the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) ought to\nhave directed the Ld. AO to delete the disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I. 15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I. 15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I.15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I.15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I.15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I.15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I.15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I. 15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. I. 15. In this regard we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT (318 ITR 171

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed that cost in respect of abortive/unsuccessful blocks are not to be reduced while computing the profits of undertaking namely, KGD which is eligible for deduction under section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed that cost in respect of abortive/unsuccessful blocks are not to be reduced while computing the profits of undertaking namely, KGD which is eligible for deduction under section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021

STANDARD CHARTERED INVESTMENTS & LOANS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rehman

Section Provision Provision by profit/loss on of 143(1)/Assessment Department sale of profit/loss investment on sale of investment 2005-06 Assessment u/s 32,51,57,000 Disallowed 8,25,000 Accepted 147 as Business Income 2006-07 Assessment u/s 10,56,44,000 Accepted as (1,60,171

ASST CIT 1(2)1, MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED INVESTMENTS & LOANS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rehman

Section Provision Provision by profit/loss on of 143(1)/Assessment Department sale of profit/loss investment on sale of investment 2005-06 Assessment u/s 32,51,57,000 Disallowed 8,25,000 Accepted 147 as Business Income 2006-07 Assessment u/s 10,56,44,000 Accepted as (1,60,171