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

206,530/– . The learned assessing officer made the following disallowances i. disallowance u/s 14 A of ₹ 120,603,405/– ii. disallowance of deduction u/s 35D for allotment to QIP of Rs 2, 82,80,291/– iii. provision on investment amounting to ₹ 160,152,000/– iv. brokerage paid on acquisition of investment ₹ 386,405 v. provision for bad and doubtful debts

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

206,530/– . The learned assessing officer made the following disallowances i. disallowance u/s 14 A of ₹ 120,603,405/– ii. disallowance of deduction u/s 35D for allotment to QIP of Rs 2, 82,80,291/– iii. provision on investment amounting to ₹ 160,152,000/– iv. brokerage paid on acquisition of investment ₹ 386,405 v. provision for bad and doubtful debts

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

206,530/– . The learned assessing officer made the following disallowances i. disallowance u/s 14 A of ₹ 120,603,405/– ii. disallowance of deduction u/s 35D for allotment to QIP of Rs 2, 82,80,291/– iii. provision on investment amounting to ₹ 160,152,000/– iv. brokerage paid on acquisition of investment ₹ 386,405 v. provision for bad and doubtful debts

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

206,530/– . The learned assessing officer made the following disallowances i. disallowance u/s 14 A of ₹ 120,603,405/– ii. disallowance of deduction u/s 35D for allotment to QIP of Rs 2, 82,80,291/– iii. provision on investment amounting to ₹ 160,152,000/– iv. brokerage paid on acquisition of investment ₹ 386,405 v. provision for bad and doubtful debts

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

206,530/– . The learned assessing officer made the following disallowances i. disallowance u/s 14 A of ₹ 120,603,405/– ii. disallowance of deduction u/s 35D for allotment to QIP of Rs 2, 82,80,291/– iii. provision on investment amounting to ₹ 160,152,000/– iv. brokerage paid on acquisition of investment ₹ 386,405 v. provision for bad and doubtful debts

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

206,530/– . The learned assessing officer made the following disallowances i. disallowance u/s 14 A of ₹ 120,603,405/– ii. disallowance of deduction u/s 35D for allotment to QIP of Rs 2, 82,80,291/– iii. provision on investment amounting to ₹ 160,152,000/– iv. brokerage paid on acquisition of investment ₹ 386,405 v. provision for bad and doubtful debts

M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

disallowed as if there was no expenditure incurred by the respondent-assessee for conducting business. The CIT(A) has positively held that the business was set up and had commenced. The said finding is accepted. The respondent- assessee, therefore, had to incur expenditure for the business in the form of investment in shares of cement companies and to further expand

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)

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules,1962 was affirmed by the Tribunal, as disallowed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) in the first appeal. Now, before we proceed further with this issue in the appeal, it is important to highlight that as emerging from the orders of the Mumbai Tribunal

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)

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules,1962 was affirmed by the Tribunal, as disallowed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) in the first appeal. Now, before we proceed further with this issue in the appeal, it is important to highlight that as emerging from the orders of the Mumbai Tribunal

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

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

206/- under the normal provisions of the Income Act and Book Loss of INR 63,28,67,343/- under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Later on, the Assessee filed revised computation of income on 11.02.2016 declaring total loss at INR 61,22,62,358/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Book Loss

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

206/- under the normal provisions of the Income Act and Book Loss of INR 63,28,67,343/- under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Later on, the Assessee filed revised computation of income on 11.02.2016 declaring total loss at INR 61,22,62,358/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Book Loss

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

section 14A of the Act. 6.1 In the case in hand, the assessee bank has three types of instruments appearing in its balance sheet, the income earned from which has been claimed as exempted under the provisions of the Act. It has been claimed by the assessee that all instruments like securities, bonds etc. have been held as stock

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 14A by Finance Act 2022 by inserting Explanation, and the total disallowance u/s 14A did not exceed the exempt income of Rs. 24,65,29,206

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 14A by Finance Act 2022 by inserting Explanation, and the total disallowance u/s 14A did not exceed the exempt income of Rs. 24,65,29,206

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 14A of the Act. M/s Yes Bank Ltd. 10 ITA No. 3017,& 4278/M/2019 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण COME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SPEEDY JUSTICE 6.1 In the case in hand, the assessee bank has three types of instruments appearing in its balance sheet, the income earned from which has been claimed as exempted under the provisions

ESSEL PROPACK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhessel Propack Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Top Floor, Times Tower, Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaace 1568L Appellant Respondednt

section 143(3) rws 144C(13) on 28-01-2016. Aggrieved by various additions / disallowances, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission of learned authorised representative (ld.AR) of the assessee and the learned departmental representative (ld. DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. At the outset of hearing

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VISARIA SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Circle 4(2) M/S. Visaria Securities P. Ltd. Room No. 642, 6Th Floor 301-A, Commerce House Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 140, N.M. Road, Fountain Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan - Aaacv7721L Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D was before a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10. In its order in ITA No. 4299/Mum/2013 dated 13.03.2015, the Coordinate Bench at paras 4 to 6 thereof upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the said disallowance holding as under: - “4. We have

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company