DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

301,178/– under section 10 (15) (iv), interest on long-term finance to infrastructure of ₹ 1,396,486,909/– under section 10 (23G) and a sum of ₹ 3,652,615,063 as dividend income exempt under section 10 (34) and section 10 (35) of the Act. Thus, assessee has claimed total exempt income

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

301,425 vii. amortisation of premium paid on held to maturity securities amounting to ₹ 308,135,800 063. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who passed an order on 31/1/2018 allowing certain deductions and confirming certain disallowances. The learned CIT – A also did not admit certain additional evidences as well as the additional ground raised

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

301,425 vii. amortisation of premium paid on held to maturity securities amounting to ₹ 308,135,800 063. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who passed an order on 31/1/2018 allowing certain deductions and confirming certain disallowances. The learned CIT – A also did not admit certain additional evidences as well as the additional ground raised

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

301,425 vii. amortisation of premium paid on held to maturity securities amounting to ₹ 308,135,800 063. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who passed an order on 31/1/2018 allowing certain deductions and confirming certain disallowances. The learned CIT – A also did not admit certain additional evidences as well as the additional ground raised

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

301,425 vii. amortisation of premium paid on held to maturity securities amounting to ₹ 308,135,800 063. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who passed an order on 31/1/2018 allowing certain deductions and confirming certain disallowances. The learned CIT – A also did not admit certain additional evidences as well as the additional ground raised

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

301,425 vii. amortisation of premium paid on held to maturity securities amounting to ₹ 308,135,800 063. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who passed an order on 31/1/2018 allowing certain deductions and confirming certain disallowances. The learned CIT – A also did not admit certain additional evidences as well as the additional ground raised

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

301,425 vii. amortisation of premium paid on held to maturity securities amounting to ₹ 308,135,800 063. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who passed an order on 31/1/2018 allowing certain deductions and confirming certain disallowances. The learned CIT – A also did not admit certain additional evidences as well as the additional ground raised

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO BUILDING, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowances claimed by the assessee is not done as required under section 14A(2) of the Act. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and calls for no interference.” 13. The Hon'ble High Court also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 301

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

301 to 317 of the legal paperbook) 48. In view of the above, it is submitted that the provisions of section 50B are merely computational provisions (and not charging section) and the charging section for the capital gains would be section 45 only and by no stretch of imagination section 50B of the Act can be said

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

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 Assessee by : Mr. Ishraq Contractor : Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 10/07/2025 : 17/07/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER

EDELWEISS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIR-1(2), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

disallowances claimed by the assessee is not done as required under section 14A(2) of the Act. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and calls for no interference.” 013. The Hon'ble High Court also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 301

ELDELWEISS SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(1) (1) , MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

disallowances claimed by the assessee is not done as required under section 14A(2) of the Act. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and calls for no interference.” 013. The Hon'ble High Court also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 301

EDELWEISS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

disallowances claimed by the assessee is not done as required under section 14A(2) of the Act. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and calls for no interference.” 013. The Hon'ble High Court also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 301

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

301,178/– under section 10 (15) (iv), interest on long-term finance to infrastructure of ₹ 1,396,486,909/– under section 10 (23G) and a sum of ₹ 3,652,615,063 as dividend income exempt under section 10 (34) and section 10 (35) of the Act. Thus, assessee has claimed total exempt income

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)

disallowance of INR.83,93,835/- made under section 14A of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. The Assessee also raised following grounds before the CIT(A) challenging the variation from

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)

disallowance of INR.83,93,835/- made under section 14A of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. The Assessee also raised following grounds before the CIT(A) challenging the variation from

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO BUILDING, MUMBAI

disallowances claimed by the assessee is not done\nas required under section 14A(2) of the Act. On facts, the view taken by\nthe Tribunal is a possible view and calls for no interference.”\n13.\nThe Hon'ble High Court also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 301

IL&FS MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A read with Rule BD. The Hon'ble High Court considered the impact of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maxopp Investments Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 301 CTR (SC) 489 (2018) 164 DTR (SC) to empathize that any purported disallowance