MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

disallowed and added to\nincome. CIT(A) recorded the fact that AO has not discussed\nSection 43B(f) thus erred in interpreting and justify such\ndisallowance u/s 438(b) as if interpreted and justified by AO in\nassessment order, even though no such reason is recorded in\nassessment order by AO nor applied such section

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

438 of the legal paperbook) • DCIT Vs JSW Limited [2020] 189 DTR 0015 (Mum ITAT) (Refer page 441 to 448 of the legal paperbook) 62. Accordingly, in absence of any exempt income earned out of investment in TMFSL, there should not be any disallowance under section

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed under Section 14-A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue's Appeal against the order of the Tribunal in M/s. Essar Teleholdings (supra) was dismissed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 438

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed under Section 14-A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue's Appeal against the order of the Tribunal in M/s. Essar Teleholdings (supra) was dismissed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 438

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

disallowed the claim towards pension benefit by observing on the following 4 issues: - “a. In view of the language of Section 37(1) itself, it is clear that it is a residual section for allowability of various expenses in the computation of income if there is no other specific provision relating to allowance of any expenditure

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

disallowed\nunder Section 14-A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book\nprofit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue's Appeal\nagainst the order of the Tribunal in M/s. Essar Teleholdings (supra)\nwas dismissed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 438

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 14A of the Act. 4.6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 4.7. It is admitted position that the Appellant has earned exempt dividend income of INR 404.98 Crores from investments made in ‘Indus Towers Limited’ during the relevant previous year. It is also admitted position that no investments were made by the Appellant

JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of Rs. 78,93,438/- under Section 14A of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the above sum applying

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 14A read with rule 8D is worked out accordingly. In view of the discussion above all investments which have yielded or shall yield exempt dividend Income including all equity shares and preference shares of Indian companies and dividend oriented mutual funds are considered. 9.3. On the above points of dis-satisfaction, ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the counters

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 14A read with rule 8D is worked out accordingly. In view of the discussion above all investments which have yielded or shall yield exempt dividend Income including all equity shares and preference shares of Indian companies and dividend oriented mutual funds are considered. 9.3. On the above points of dis-satisfaction, ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the counters

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 14A read with rule 8D is worked out accordingly. In view of the discussion above all investments which have yielded or shall yield exempt dividend Income including all equity shares and preference shares of Indian companies and dividend oriented mutual funds are considered. 9.3. On the above points of dis-satisfaction, ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the counters

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 14A read with rule 8D is worked out accordingly. In view of the discussion above all investments which have yielded or shall yield exempt dividend Income including all equity shares and preference shares of Indian companies and dividend oriented mutual funds are considered. 9.3. On the above points of dis-satisfaction, ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the counters

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of Rs. 595,00,438/- incurred by the assessee on aborted blocks of other contract areas under Production Sharing contracts other than KGD? – Rs.2,05,91,912/- 3.1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in not accepting the decision of AO that "Mineral Oil" does

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of Rs. 595,00,438/- incurred by the assessee on aborted blocks of other contract areas under Production Sharing contracts other than KGD? – Rs.2,05,91,912/- 3.1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in not accepting the decision of AO that "Mineral Oil" does

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

section 14A\nof the Act on the ground of non-applicability of Rule 8D of Income\nTax Rules. Therefore the ground raised by the Revenue is\ninfructuous, and same is dismissed.\n10. In ground No. II, the assessee has challenged finding of the\nLd. CIT(A) with regard to disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Act\nfor directing

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

disallowed\nunder Section 14-A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book\nprofit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue's Appeal\nagainst the order of the Tribunal in M/s. Essar Teleholdings (supra)\nwas dismissed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 438

M/S ATLANTA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 9 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue‟s appeal (ITA No

438 ITR 1 (SC). In view of the aforesaid, no disallowance is warranted in terms of Section 14A of the Act read