DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

section 44 overrides or accommodates the general provisions of exemption and disallowance under the Act. of exemption and disallowance under

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

section 44 overrides or accommodates the general provisions of exemption and disallowance under the Act. of exemption and disallowance under

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI-400021 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee had made donations to the tune of Rs.5.00 cores to LIC Golden Jubilee Foundation. The donation to said Foundation are eligible for deduction under section 80G. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80G to the extent

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowance of Rs.1159,19,00,000/- U/S.14A rwr 8D by holding that the AO cannot go beyond the provisions of section 44

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowance of Rs.1159,19,00,000/- U/S.14A rwr 8D by holding that the AO cannot go beyond the provisions of section 44

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowance of Rs.1159,19,00,000/- U/S.14A rwr 8D by holding that the AO cannot go beyond the provisions of section 44

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

disallowance of Rs.956,03,00,000/- U/S.14A rwr 8D by holding that the AO cannot go beyond the provisions of section 44

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

disallowance of Rs.956,03,00,000/- U/S.14A rwr 8D by holding that the AO cannot go beyond the provisions of section 44

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

44,163, under section 80IA. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3), vide order dated 30th November 2010 disallowing

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

44. In view In view of the above catena of judgements, it is of the above catena of judgements, it is abundantly clear that in absence of any exempt income, no abundantly clear that in absence of any exempt income, no abundantly clear that in absence of any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is permissible. disallowance

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowance of ₹ 424,777,318/– was made. The assessee before us along with the adjustment to the book profit challenged the same. 10. The Ld. Authorised Representative has submitted a chart. accroding to that chart, all the issues in this appeal are covered by decision of Cordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for earlier years. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021

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 r.w.r 8D is not warranted in the year in which the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Accordingly we hold that the disallowance 32 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited confirmed by the CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 67,84,065/- is liable to be deleted since the assessee did not earn any exempt income

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 r.w.r 8D is not warranted in the year in which the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Accordingly we hold that the disallowance 32 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited confirmed by the CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 67,84,065/- is liable to be deleted since the assessee did not earn any exempt income

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 r.w.r 8D is not warranted in the year in which the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Accordingly we hold that the disallowance 32 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited confirmed by the CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 67,84,065/- is liable to be deleted since the assessee did not earn any exempt income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HDFC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit – 1(1)(1) 597, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai Maharashtra–400020……………. Appellant

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not attracted in the case of the assessee, which is an insurance company, due to the special provision of section 44

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, CIRCLE-8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

44 read with First Schedule of the Act without considering its impact with Section 14A wrt to disallowance that needs

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\nin computing total income of an Assessee engaged in business of\ninsurance whose profits and gains from the insurance business are\ncomputed in accordance with provisions contained in Section 44

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 ()

Section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Appellant has disallowed suo 14A r.w.r. 8D. Appellant has disallowed suo-motto an amount of motto an amount of Rs.9,08,52,583/ Rs.9,08,52,583/- but there is no proper justification for such but there is no proper justification for such disallowance. As per the appellant's admission by letter dated disallowance