LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5434/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Lic Housing Finance Limited Dcit-Circle -2(2) 2Nd Floor, Bombay Life Bldg. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg 45/47 Veer Nariman Road Mumbai- 400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 023. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-5375-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5435/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06) Lic Housing Finance Limited Dcit-Circle -2(2) 2Nd Floor, Bombay Life Bldg. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg 45/47 Veer Nariman Road Mumbai- 400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 023. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-5375-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri H.P. Mahajani- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Anadi Varma - Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 30/07/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

disallowance of Rs.20.48 Crores. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred confirming addition of interest of Rs.7,37,92,296/- on non-performing assets under Section 43D

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

section 80HHC of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the profit earned by valuing finished goods is notional imaginary profit which could not be taxed. In view of the above, it is argued that appreciation in value of investments cannot be taken into account. The netting off of appreciation against the depreciation within a classification is therefore contrary

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

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

section 40(a) (i)/ (ia) of the Act. 2. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow the expenses in connection with QIP. GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE PAID ON HTM SECURITIES: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP,MENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

Section 43D of the Act does not have any retrospective application, hence income prior to 1.4.1991 cannot be taxed. We find merit in the contentions of the assessee on this issue. Moreover, the case of assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of Travancore (supra), accordingly

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

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

section 40(a) (i)/ (ia) of the Act. 2. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow the expenses in connection with QIP. GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE PAID ON HTM SECURITIES: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ICICI BANK LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

section 43D of the Act Rs.6,88,36,167 (Para 7, Pages 9 to 16 of the CIT(A) order) 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

ACIT-2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ICICI BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

section 43D of the Act Rs.6,88,36,167 (Para 7, Pages 9 to 16 of the CIT(A) order) 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

THE DY CIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA PROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed whereas Cross Objection No

43D of the Act. A co-joint reading of Sections 145A and Section 43B of the Act would show that as per Section 145A of the Act the business profits are firstly required to be mandatorily computed by following the 'Inclusive method', by loading the amount of tax or duty etc. on purchase, sale and inventories and thereafter, if some

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

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

Disallowance of amortization of premium paid on securities in Held to Maturity [HTM] category-INR 19,18,69,28,708 8.1 The learned PCIT erred in setting aside the said matter to the AO for examination without appreciating that the said issue is outside the purview of section 263 in light of the facts and legal submissions made

VASANJI U. CHHEDA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvisanji U. Chheda, Prop. M/S. Sonal Developers, C-4, Big Splash, Sector -17, Vashi Navi Mumbai. Pan: Afipc2413A ... Appellant Vs.

43D as has been provided under section 29. Section 40 is a non-obstante clause which places embargo on the allowability of expenses / expenditure from section 30 to 38. Therefore, any disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 43D of the Act? (Tax effect: Rs. 67,62,77,257 @ 34.61% of Rs. 195,41,06,729/-) 11. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITYA) was correct in deleting the disallowance