GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

disallowed contributions to various Employees' Welfare funds being statutory payments that are not covered under section 40A(9) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 5 ITA No. 7424 Mum 2010 & 8533 Mum 2011-Greaves Cotton Ltd. GROUND: E: UNUTILISED CENVAT CREDIT - (Rs. 2,95,78,424/- (-) Rs.l,49,82,050) Rs.l,45,96,374/- (i) On the facts

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the claim of weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act on the ground that the Appellant has failed to submit necessary documentary evidences. 1 : 2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, it is entitled to claim weighted deduction

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS on Roaming Charges & on Discount extended to prepaid distributors 244

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS on Roaming Charges & on Discount extended to prepaid distributors 244

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

BAJAJ CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

244, dt.25.07.2017, the Hon'ble HC has held 25.07.2017, the Hon'ble HC has held that where AO gave detailed reasons for making disallowance u/s.14A, mere fact that where AO gave detailed reasons for making disallowance u/s.14A, mere fact that where AO gave detailed reasons for making disallowance u/s.14A, mere fact that AO did not arrive at a satisfaction

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

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS on Roaming Charges & on Discount extended to prepaid distributors 244

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 has been recorded by the Assessing Officer and therefore disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. 8.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rejected arguments made by the assessee on this issue observing as under

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

section 14A of the Act.” 7. The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the computation of the suo motu disal computation of the suo motu disallowance and therefore after lowance and therefore after recording dissatisfaction as to the computation

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

section 14A of the Act.” 7. The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the computation of the suo motu disal computation of the suo motu disallowance and therefore after lowance and therefore after recording dissatisfaction as to the computation

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINAMRA UNIVERSAL TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by them u/s. 14A, though on the lower side were not willful and there is no falsehood in their accounts is not acceptable. The A.O. then relying upon the decision given in the case of CIT vs. Gates 91 1TR 467, Cement Distributors vs. CIT 60 ITR 586, CIT vs. Premier Breweries 244 ITR 598, CIT vs. Vilasben

ASST CIT 1(2)1, MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED INVESTMENTS & LOANS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rehman

disallowance for the year under consideration is restricted to 2% of the exempt income. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 25. Ground no.5 relates to depreciation on printers, cables, routers and other connectivity charges. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that this 16 ITA No. 7070, 7069, 7088 & 7089 M 16-Standard Chartered Investments & Loans (India) Ltd. ground

STANDARD CHARTERED INVESTMENTS & LOANS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rehman

disallowance for the year under consideration is restricted to 2% of the exempt income. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 25. Ground no.5 relates to depreciation on printers, cables, routers and other connectivity charges. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that this 16 ITA No. 7070, 7069, 7088 & 7089 M 16-Standard Chartered Investments & Loans (India) Ltd. ground

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 194H of the Act, by no means, the Assessing Officer has established on record that dealers/distributors are agents of the assessee. Further, as we find, the trip scheme has been introduced by the assessee from past 20 years and the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of such trip scheme has never been disallowed by the Assessing Officer

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 194H of the Act, by no means, the Assessing Officer has established on record that dealers/distributors are agents of the assessee. Further, as we find, the trip scheme has been introduced by the assessee from past 20 years and the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of such trip scheme has never been disallowed by the Assessing Officer

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

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

section 14A has been recorded by the Assessing Officer and therefore disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. M/s Yes Bank Ltd. 17 ITA No. 3017,& 4278/M/2019 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण COME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SPEEDY JUSTICE 8.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of INR. 63,32,318/- was made by the Assessing Officer. 9.2. In appeal preferred by the Assessee on this issue, the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief and rejected the ground raised by the Assessee by placing reliance upon the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of Amway India Enterprises reported

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of transaction charges and lease line charges. As a result, ground No. 7 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 40. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.831/Mum/2007-08 (A.Y.2007-08) 41. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- GROUND GROUND/ISSUE NO. 1. Deletion of addition