DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 195(1)." 32. Where there is no liability in India, there can be no question of disallowance under Section

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited to P&L A/c to the tune of Rs. 455,78,00,000/- towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee computed the deduction claimed

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited to P&L A/c to the tune of Rs. 455,78,00,000/- towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee computed the deduction claimed

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

disallowing payment of license charges for purchase of software amounting to INR 1,87,220 under section 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

disallowing payment of license charges for purchase of software amounting to INR 1,87,220 under section 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Range 11(3)(1) ('AO') of reimbursement of demurrage expenses made to non-residents including group entities of the Appellant under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of alleged non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195

ASST CIT RANGE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Range 11(3)(1) ('AO') of reimbursement of demurrage expenses made to non-residents including group entities of the Appellant under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of alleged non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195

ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Range 11(3)(1) ('AO') of reimbursement of demurrage expenses made to non-residents including group entities of the Appellant under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of alleged non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Range 11(3)(1) ('AO') of reimbursement of demurrage expenses made to non-residents including group entities of the Appellant under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of alleged non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195

DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

1 & 2: Disallowance of Rs.4.63 crores made on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of demurrage charges: 3. During the course of assessment the assessing officer noticed that the assesse company has made certain payments to non-resident entities located outside India without deducting tax at source as per provisions of Section 195

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Range 11(3)(1) ('AO') of reimbursement of demurrage expenses made to non-residents including group entities of the Appellant under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of alleged non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195

DCIT- 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Range 11(3)(1) ('AO') of reimbursement of demurrage expenses made to non-residents including group entities of the Appellant under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of alleged non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

disallow the deduction to 10% of rural advances of ₹122.30 crores which were not rural branches ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 vi. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act of ₹138,52,06,494/- which should have been restricted to ₹961,47,93,509/- being 20% of allowable deduction. vii. Excess allowances of long-term

ACIT -25(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GEPACH INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5943 & 5942/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

disallowed on the ground that it is in violation of provisions of section 195 r.w.s. 9(l)(vii). Agreement was only for procuring orders which did not involve any managerial services. Explanation added to section 9(l)(vii) by Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 1

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) of the Act? (Tax Effect: Rs. 2,71,97,333/- @34.61% Rs. 8,22,59,119/-) 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of interest on Perpetual Bonds as Perpetual Bonds cannot be are not borrowed

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) of the Act? (Tax Effect: Rs. 2,71,97,333/- @34.61% Rs. 8,22,59,119/-) 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of interest on Perpetual Bonds as Perpetual Bonds cannot be are not borrowed

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. – Rs.13,01,85,558/- Ground 2(a) to 2(h): Deduction U/s 36(1)(vii) on the balance outstanding in respect of rural advance. 7. The issue is inter-connected with Ground 1; so the issue is covered in favour of the assesse in consolidated order

DCIT (IT) - 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS CAPITAL INVESTMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal, as also the CO, are dismissed

disallowance as a result of same proposed by Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) but not accepted by Dispute Resolution Panel. Since Dispute Resolution Panel took the view that tax is not deductible at source under section 194J as a result of retrospective amendment, the matter reached Hon. Mumbai High Court. The court held that the same tantamount