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 under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. c. Deleted disallowance of brokerage paid on acquisition

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 under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. c. Deleted disallowance of brokerage paid on acquisition

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 under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. c. Deleted disallowance of brokerage paid on acquisition

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 under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. c. Deleted disallowance of brokerage paid on acquisition

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

section 35D(2)(c)(iv)\nwhich allow amortization of preliminary expenses incurred in connection with the\nissue for \"Public Subscription\" of shares. The AO disallowed

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

section 35D(2)(c)(iv)\nwhich allow amortization of preliminary expenses incurred in connection with the\nissue for "Public Subscription" of shares. The AO disallowed

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

35D of the Act. Act. WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: M/s Yes Bank Ltd. ITA Nos.3501 & 3239/M/2018 GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES

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

35D of the Act. Act. WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO GROUND NOS. IV AND V: M/s Yes Bank Ltd. ITA Nos.3501 & 3239/M/2018 GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY GROUND NO. VI: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES

IDBI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

c) did not cover a case where the assessee made a provision for bad or doubtful debt. With insertion of clause (i) to the Explanation with retrospective effect, any amount or amounts set aside for provision for diminution in the value of the asset made by the assessee, would be added back for computation of book profit under section 115JB

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

35D of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. VII AND VIII: GROUND NO. VII: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY INVOKING SECTION 40(a) (i)/(ia) OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in observing that the expenses in connection with QIP may not be allowable

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S Bnp Paribas Securities India Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 8Th Floor, 1 North Avenue, Maker Mumbai-400020. Maxity Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)- Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadcb 4690 F Appellant Respondent

2 of section 35D of the Act, I do not find any merit in of section 35D of the Act, I do not find any merit in disallowing the whole disallowing the whole expenditure of expenditure of 20,80,75,902 under section35D of the Act and 20,80,75,902 under section35D of the Act and hereby delete

TRENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T.-2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

35D of the Act. 4) The CIT(A) also erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹.738,189/- being expenditure of revenue nature towards preferential issue expense and ₹.928,198/-towards warrant issue expense u/s.37(1) of the Act, being capital expenditure. 5) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by AO towards the amount amortized in respect

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

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

35D of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. VII AND VIII: GROUND NO. VII: DISALLOWANCE OF QIP EXPENSES BY INVOKING SECTION 40(a) (i)/(ia) OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in observing that the expenses in connection with QIP may not be allowable

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

35D of the Act was never the issue before either the AO or before the CIT(A). At the second appeal, Ld CIT DR cannot make a new case by invoking section 35 D of the Act even if it is correctly invokable. For this proposition, he relied on (Supra). Therefore, we dismiss the Ld DR‟s argument

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

35D of the Act was never the issue before either the AO or before the CIT(A). At the second appeal, Ld CIT DR cannot make a new case by invoking section 35 D of the Act even if it is correctly invokable. For this proposition, he relied on (Supra). Therefore, we dismiss the Ld DR‟s argument

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)

c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in saying that unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years before the first year of claim, which has already been absorbed, could be notionally carried forward and taken into consideration for computation of deduction under section 80-IA ? 12.6. Answering the above question

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowance has no legal sanctity and hence, the same need to be deleted. The ld.AR further contended that “without prejudice, the entire amount of job work charges paid to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt Ltd has been disallowed which is totally incorrect; at best, the GP of Cheryl Laboratories Pvt Ltd. can he considered for disallowance.” 68. On the other hand

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowance has no legal sanctity and hence, the same need to be deleted. The ld.AR further contended that “without prejudice, the entire amount of job work charges paid to Cheryl Laboratories Pvt Ltd has been disallowed which is totally incorrect; at best, the GP of Cheryl Laboratories Pvt Ltd. can he considered for disallowance.” 68. On the other hand