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

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

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

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

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 14 A by making the computation under rule 8D (2) of the act. For the indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) the total disallowance of Rs. 198,245,193

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 14 A by making the computation under rule 8D (2) of the act. For the indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) the total disallowance of Rs. 198,245,193

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 14 A by making the computation under rule 8D (2) of the act. For the indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) the total disallowance of Rs. 198,245,193

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 14 A by making the computation under rule 8D (2) of the act. For the indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) the total disallowance of Rs. 198,245,193

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

disallowance under section 14A of the Act vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 9 November 2017 (Refer point 6 at page 56 of Paperbook). In response, the Assessee, vide submission dated 21 November 2017 (Refer page 90 to 93 of Paperbook) has submitted a detailed response. Further, the learned AO had thoroughly examined the copy

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE LD. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ ITO, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

193,854/– was made as per order under section 92CA (3) of the act dated 5/7/2021. 08. Draft assessment order was passed on 29/9/2021 wherein the disallowance

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowed for the reason that the assessee has not been able to substantiate back to back payment of the said amount. Once it has been accepted that the five employees were seconded to India by overseas AEs, the relocation of those employees to India is a consequential step. There would be cost attached to relocation of such employees. The said

ALLIED DIGITAL SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets to the book profits computed under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed additions made by the AO, without appreciating the fact that once books of accounts are audited and approved by the shareholders in the AGM, the AO does not have power

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of provision for pension. The CIT(A) upheld the decision of the AO. The assessee bank has claimed that the provision for pension made by it in its books of account is an accrued liability that should be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. The assessee bank has also

LAQSHYA MEDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing In Vc No. –Ii) M/S. Laqshya Media Ltd. D C I T - 10(2)(1) Laqshya House Room No. 509/216A Next To Rameshwar Temple, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Saraswti Baug, Society Road, Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aaacl5004C Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajan Vora-Ar Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohancit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2020 O R D E R Per Pawan Singhthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 29Th October, 2018, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Penal (Drp) Dated 28Th August, 2018 For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao/ Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing - 3(1)(1)(Hereinafter Referred To As Tpo')/ Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income At 5,67,38,117As Against Returned Loss Of Rs.8,55,13,089 Computed By The Appellant; Part B -Transfer Pricing Ground: 2. Adjustment Of Rs.20.58.028/- Pertaining To Providing Of Corporate Guarantee (Cg) To Associated Enterprise (Ae)

disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act were upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard submissions of the learned authorised representative (A.R.) of the assessee and the learned departmental representative (D.R.) for Revenue and perused the material available on record. Ground No. 1 is general in nature

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)

Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii), the assessee (firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12 per cent per se. This is because section

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)

Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii), the assessee (firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12 per cent per se. This is because section

JT. COMM OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , CC - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RAJAMUNDRY EXPRESSWAY PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us :-

disallowed assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act on a completely different reasoning without any material basis. Thus, he submitted, assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IA should be allowed. In support of his contention, leaned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: – i) Radhaswamy Satsangh v/s CIT, [2992] 193