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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

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

JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

Section 37(1) of the Act nugatory and would effectively nullify the specific Act nugatory and would effectively nullify the specific Act nugatory and would effectively nullify the specific Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. disallowance legislated by the Parliament. The principle of ed by the Parliament. The principle of harmonious construction requires that statutes be interpreted harmonious

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

RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

disallowed the same on the ground that there is no provision for assessment under the head “short term capital gain”. The Assessing Officer’s reasoning is vague and not supported by the law. What is required to be seen is whether the loss has occurred on account of transfer of capital asset or not and if the loss

ADDL CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

disallowed the same on the ground that there is no provision for assessment under the head “short term capital gain”. The Assessing Officer’s reasoning is vague and not supported by the law. What is required to be seen is whether the loss has occurred on account of transfer of capital asset or not and if the loss

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 u/s that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in trade business etc., the Ld. Counsel submitted as under: the Ld. Counsel

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 u/s that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in trade business etc., the Ld. Counsel submitted as under: the Ld. Counsel

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

Section 115TA of the Act\nprovides for different rates for different Assessees, which\nsubstantiates that the tax paid by trust u/s 115TA of the Act is the\ntax paid on behalf of the Assessee. The taxability in the hands of\nthe Securitisation trust.\nThus, the interest income of the Assessee, though not taxed in the\nhands of the Assessee (investor

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

section 80G of the Act i.e Alubound Dacs India\n(P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (207 ITD 393) (Mumbai), ACG Pam Pharma\nTechnologies (P.) Ltd. V. PCIT (176) taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai) etc. In\nview of the foregoing, the disallowance

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

section 80G of the Act i.e Alubound Dacs India\n(P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (207 ITD 393) (Mumbai), ACG Pam Pharma\nTechnologies (P.) Ltd. V. PCIT (176) taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai) etc. In\nview of the foregoing, the disallowance

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

section 80G of the Act i.e Alubound Dacs India\n(P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (207 ITD 393) (Mumbai), ACG Pam Pharma\nTechnologies (P.) Ltd. V. PCIT (176) taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai) etc. In\nview of the foregoing, the disallowance

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 37(1) of the Act. 13. The AO vide assessment order did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee has been in the field of paints business for more than 50 years and is entering into a completely new line of business, i.e. home decor/home improvement and acquisition of overseas company. Asian Paints