APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

26. Insofar as grounds raised challenging disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

26. Insofar as grounds raised challenging disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

26. Insofar as grounds raised challenging disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

26. Insofar as grounds raised challenging disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

26. Insofar as grounds raised challenging disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

26. Insofar as grounds raised challenging disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

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)

iii) He helps in the development of new customized products Apart from that he helps by providing market feedbacks, information samples etc.. (iv) He carries out liaison work on behalf of the assessee. (v) He coordinates with customers and follows up for payment if and when required. & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 (v) He gives the information about the new developments

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)

iii) He helps in the development of new customized products Apart from that he helps by providing market feedbacks, information samples etc.. (iv) He carries out liaison work on behalf of the assessee. (v) He coordinates with customers and follows up for payment if and when required. & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 (v) He gives the information about the new developments

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs. 43,41,10,331/- based on the following computation: Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) Amount for AY 2011-12 Profits and Gains of business before claiming 5,32,13,30,820 deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) [A] Gross Total

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs. 43,41,10,331/- based on the following computation: Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) Amount for AY 2011-12 Profits and Gains of business before claiming 5,32,13,30,820 deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) [A] Gross Total

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

disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act. As per settled law the concept of income includes a loss i. e. negative income or zero i. e. nil income. As per matching principle, there can be positive receipt resulting into positive income or loss or nil income. Similarly, from a source there can be nil receipt which may result into loss

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallow the following amounts out of interest expenditure by holding that the advancing of interest free loan to 100% subsidiaries did not fall within the meaning of "for the purpose of the business" in Section 36 (1)(iii) of the Act (1) Rs. 24,26

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallow the following amounts out of interest expenditure by holding that the advancing of interest free loan to 100% subsidiaries did not fall within the meaning of "for the purpose of the business" in Section 36 (1)(iii) of the Act (1) Rs. 24,26

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallow the following amounts out of interest expenditure by holding that the advancing of interest free loan to 100% subsidiaries did not fall within the meaning of "for the purpose of the business" in Section 36 (1)(iii) of the Act (1) Rs. 24,26

DUCK CREEK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

26, 2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 19th August, 2021, upholding the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (CPC) in the course of processing of income tax return under section 143(1) of the Income

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

26. We noted that the AO has made disallowance but the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance as under: - “6.1 According to the appellant, during the assessment year 2008-09, the Bank had adopted Accounting Standard (AS) 15 - Employee Benefits (Revised 2005) issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. In accordance with the transitional provisions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance made by the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance made by the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance made by the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business