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

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged violation of section 194C / 194H of the Act is legally unsustainable. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions :— (i) Ahmedabad Stamp Vendor Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged violation of section 194C / 194H of the Act is legally unsustainable. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Ahmedabad Stemp Vendor Association v/s Union of India, [2002] 257 ITR 202

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

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

section 14A read with rule 8D. It was further submitted by him that details of investments available at page 97 of the paper book shows that most of the investments remained same during the year as compared to earlier year. Thus, no further expenditure was incurred in absence of any fresh investments. It was also submitted that assessee had made

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

section 14A read with rule 8D. It was further submitted by him that details of investments available at page 97 of the paper book shows that most of the investments remained same during the year as compared to earlier year. Thus, no further expenditure was incurred in absence of any fresh investments. It was also submitted that assessee had made

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

section 14A read with rule 8D. It was further submitted by him that details of investments available at page 97 of the paper book shows that most of the investments remained same during the year as compared to earlier year. Thus, no further expenditure was incurred in absence of any fresh investments. It was also submitted that assessee had made

INDIANOIL ADANI VENTURES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "INDIAN OILTANKING LIMITED"),MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed to book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AR prayed for a similar direction for the year under consideration. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We noticed that the Co-ordinate

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 9 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged violation of section 194C / 194H of the Act is legally unsustainable. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:- i) Ahmedabad Stamp Vendor Association v/s Union of India, [2002] 257 ITR 202

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

disallowance under section 14A of the Act as under: Name Total Cost Treasury % Distribution (Amt % Distribution in Rs.) Salary 7,843,990,647 361,442,070 0.07% 0.07% 246,071 Rent – Corporate Corporate 38,567,489 5,449,196 0.07% 0.07% 3,710 Office Rent – IFC 1,838,645,861 74,131,200 0.07% 0.07% 50,469 Electricity – Corp Corp

DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

disallowance under section 14A of the Act as under: Name Total Cost Treasury % Distribution (Amt % Distribution in Rs.) Salary 7,843,990,647 361,442,070 0.07% 0.07% 246,071 Rent – Corporate Corporate 38,567,489 5,449,196 0.07% 0.07% 3,710 Office Rent – IFC 1,838,645,861 74,131,200 0.07% 0.07% 50,469 Electricity – Corp Corp

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

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

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

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

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of interest M/s. Tata Sons Limited ITA No.4323/Mum./2017 and ITA No.4221/Mum./2017 u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. If the borrowed funds have been used for making investment for shares which inturn had yielded exempt income to the assessee, then, the allowability of interest need to be looked into from the angle of Section

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of interest M/s. Tata Sons Limited ITA No.4323/Mum./2017 and ITA No.4221/Mum./2017 u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. If the borrowed funds have been used for making investment for shares which inturn had yielded exempt income to the assessee, then, the allowability of interest need to be looked into from the angle of Section

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

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb\nsuch a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear.\"\n59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in\nparagraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very\nPage | 58\nclear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable\nhigh court

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

section 18 of the Act. However, assessee \nclaimed that such amount was deductible under sections 19 & 20 of \nthe Act. It was in the light of such facts that the decision in Vijaya \nBank Ltd. (supra) was rendered. \n20. Therefore, Bombay High Court in American Express \nInternational Banking Corpn. (supra), in the facts of that case, held \nthat having assessed