ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

Section 14-A of the Act of any disallowance under A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. Since the decision amount was not permissible Since the decision Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) was followed, there is no in Cheminvest Ltd was followed, there is no substantial question of law that requires consideration. substantial question of law that requires consideration

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

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

Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) – Ground No.5 in assessee's appeal 26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs. 43,41

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) – Ground No.5 in assessee's appeal 26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs. 43,41

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A 39,58,065 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 54,83,149 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 94,41

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A 39,58,065 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 54,83,149 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 94,41

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A 39,58,065 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 54,83,149 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 94,41

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowance of expenditure of INR 1,41,19,857 Net of depreciation of INR 15,68,873) incurred for carrying out routine depreciation of INR 15,68,873) incurred for carrying out routine depreciation of INR 15,68,873) incurred for carrying out routine repairs and maintenance in repairs and maintenance in the branch office cum transit house at London

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; and - Ground No. (vi) of appeal is with regard to interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. 39. The ld. Counsel submitted that Ground No. (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of appeal are identical to the grounds raised in the preceding AY and the facts giving rise

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; and - Ground No. (vi) of appeal is with regard to interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. 39. The ld. Counsel submitted that Ground No. (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of appeal are identical to the grounds raised in the preceding AY and the facts giving rise

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; and - Ground No. (vi) of appeal is with regard to interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. 39. The ld. Counsel submitted that Ground No. (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of appeal are identical to the grounds raised in the preceding AY and the facts giving rise

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; and - Ground No. (vi) of appeal is with regard to interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. 39. The ld. Counsel submitted that Ground No. (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of appeal are identical to the grounds raised in the preceding AY and the facts giving rise

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; and - Ground No. (vi) of appeal is with regard to interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. 39. The ld. Counsel submitted that Ground No. (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of appeal are identical to the grounds raised in the preceding AY and the facts giving rise

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; and - Ground No. (vi) of appeal is with regard to interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. 39. The ld. Counsel submitted that Ground No. (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of appeal are identical to the grounds raised in the preceding AY and the facts giving rise

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) related to bad and doubtful debts. The Ld.AO, during the assessment proceedings, added back under section 41

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

Section 40A(9) of the Act. 30 In appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by following the 40. decision of his predecessor in the case of the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2003-04. Therefore, the Appellant is before us in appeal. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 41

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

disallowance of INR 44,56,22,625/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) (b) addition of INR 41

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

section 14A\n- Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure\nTotal Addition in dispute before the Tribunal\nTax on Income at normal rates\nAdd: Surcharge @10%\nAdd: Education Cess @3%\nTotal Tax effects\nAmount – Rs.\n39,58,065\n54,83,149\n94,41

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] &

41) Now therefore there cannot be any interest disallowance in the hands of the bank which has sufficient own / interest free funds more than the amount invested in the stock securities earning tax free income. In view of this even in absence of separate books of accounts, even in absence of showing direct Nexus of the funds, no interest disallowance