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(1) or 41(4

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 ()

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.1,16,79,947/ erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.1,16,79,947/- out of interest paid out of interest paid despite the fact that assesse has sufficient own funds for making the despite the fact that assesse

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

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

disallowance of provision for\nbad and doubtful debts due to re-computation of deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) related to bad and doubtful debts. The Ld.AO, during the assessment\nproceedings, added back under section 41(1) or 41(4

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

4, states that it is not necessary for exempt income to have been included in the income of a particular year for the disallowance to be triggered. According to the Learned Standing Counsel, the provisions of s.14A are made applicable, in terms of sub section (1) thereof to income 'under the act and not 'of the year' and a disallowance

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

4, states that it is not necessary for exempt income to have been included in the income of a particular year for the disallowance to be triggered. According to the Learned Standing Counsel, the provisions of s.14A are made applicable, in terms of sub section (1) thereof to income 'under the act and not 'of the year' and a disallowance

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

4, states that it is not necessary for exempt income to have been included in the income of a particular year for the disallowance to be triggered. According to the Learned Standing Counsel, the provisions of s.14A are made applicable, in terms of sub section (1) thereof to income 'under the act and not 'of the year' and a disallowance

PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

section 68. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and CIT (A) has erred in relying on third party statement without offering cross- examination. 5. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in enhancing income by wrongly applying treatment tax in relation

ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

section 68. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and CIT (A) has erred in relying on third party statement without offering cross- examination. 5. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in enhancing income by wrongly applying treatment tax in relation

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

4 pertains disallowance of INR 1,50,000/- made under 38. Section 40A(9) of the Act. 39. During the year, the Appellant paid INR 1,50,000/- to Utmal Employees Welfare Fund to provide for recreational activities for employees at Kansbahal Works, formerly known as ‘Utkal Machinery Limited’. The aforesaid payment was made in pursuance of a settlement under

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Disallowance under Section 14A (as per para 4 above) 1,41,24,152 Disallowance of proper period expenses ( as per para

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Disallowance under Section 14A (as per para 4 above) 1,41,24,152 Disallowance of proper period expenses ( as per para

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

4,90,18,859/- was therefore rejected. 5. Before us, the ld.AR has claimed that the provisions of section CSR expenses being in the nature of donation could not be allowed as the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act do not apply. He placed reliance on plethora of judicial decisions of various coordinate benches

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

41(4) of the Act only when assessee\nclaims deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the\nclaim made by the assessee is as per the provisions of the Act.\nTherefore, the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) is not proper and\nmails away from the actual transactions.\nFurther, he brought to our\nnotice the decision

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made\nunder section 14A read with Rule 8D. Accordingly, Ground No. 2\nraised by the Revenue is dismissed.\nGround No. 4: Write-back of creditors\n32. In respect of deletion of addition made by the Assessing\nOfficer, the learned DR relied upon the findings of the Assessing\nOfficer and submitted that the assessee had written back sundry\ncreditors amounting

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 (4) as the appellant had not claimed the deduction for such advances under section 36 (1) (vii) 6.2 The learned CIT – A erred in holding that the ground of appeal is not maintainable as no claim was made in the original/revised return or during the course of assessment proceedings. 7 The learned CIT – A erred in not directing

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

4. Now we take up the second situation in which the options are\nexercised by the employees after putting in service during the vesting period. In\nsuch a scenario, the actual amount of remuneration to the employees would be\nonly the amount of actual discounted premium at the time of exercise of option.\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 4: Write-back of creditors 32. In respect of deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer, the learned DR relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee had written back sundry creditors amounting