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

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data was not fully available and since the data is now available the deduction with respect to Rural Branches have been revised on the basis of such

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data was not fully available and since the data is now available the deduction with respect to Rural Branches have been revised on the basis of such

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data was not fully available and since the data is now available the deduction with respect to Rural Branches have been revised on the basis of such

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data was not fully available and since the data is now available the deduction with respect to Rural Branches have been revised on the basis of such

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data was not fully available and since the data is now available the deduction with respect to Rural Branches have been revised on the basis of such

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data was not fully available and since the data is now available the deduction with respect to Rural Branches have been revised on the basis of such

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

245 ITR 428 (SC) provision created for meeting liability towards Leave Encashment was allowable as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act as the same cannot be regarded as a provision for contingent liability. Therefore, deduction for provision created for Leave Encashment on the basis of actuarial valuation is allowable as deduction under Section

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

disallowance under Section 14A in its return of income of Rs.49 Crores which was calculated on the basis of the method adopted by the Department in the earlier years. In this connection, the following decisions may be noted: (i) NTPC vs. CIT – 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court) In this case, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “The power

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

245 ITR 428 (SC) provision\ncreated for meeting liability towards Leave Encashment was\nallowable as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act as the same\ncannot be regarded as a provision for contingent liability. Therefore,\ndeduction for provision created for Leave Encashment on the basis\nof actuarial valuation is allowable as deduction under Section

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 14 A by making the computation under rule 8D (2) of the act. For the indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) the total disallowance of Rs. 198,245

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 14 A by making the computation under rule 8D (2) of the act. For the indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) the total disallowance of Rs. 198,245

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 14 A by making the computation under rule 8D (2) of the act. For the indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) the total disallowance of Rs. 198,245

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 14 A by making the computation under rule 8D (2) of the act. For the indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) the total disallowance of Rs. 198,245

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance made by the AO towards provision made for leave salary / compensated absence. We noticed that the issue is covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 where it is held that “30. We observed that that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance made by the AO towards provision made for leave salary / compensated absence. We noticed that the issue is covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 where it is held that “30. We observed that that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act made the disallowance of Rs. 9,87,85,245 under section 14A of the Act. In appeal

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act made the disallowance of Rs. 9,87,85,245 under section 14A of the Act. In appeal

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act made the disallowance of Rs. 9,87,85,245 under section 14A of the Act. In appeal