ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

1,160,35,01,455/- in the normal computation of total income and further same was also added to the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. iii. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets of ₹27,31,73,482/- was allowed instead of depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹7,74,20,633/-. iv. Disallowance of club

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), 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

1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of Rs.4,08,67

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

1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of Rs.4,08,67

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance of INR.1,67

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance of INR.1,67

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance of INR.1,67

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

1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67

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

1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67

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

1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of Rs.4,08,67

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

67,857 Total 1,45,26,30,939 1,45,26,30,939 Average Average Investment 1,45,31,43,595 1,45,31,43,595 Disallowance under section

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

67,450/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act by taking into consideration the investment which had yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer made an additional disallowance of INR.83,93,835/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. Thus, the Assessing Officer increased the taxable income determined under

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

67,450/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act by taking into consideration the investment which had yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer made an additional disallowance of INR.83,93,835/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. Thus, the Assessing Officer increased the taxable income determined under

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of Finance Cost under section 37(1) of the Ground No.7 (7.1 to 7.3) Act Short grant of advance tax credit Ground No. 8 (8.1 & 8.2) Short grant of TDS credit Ground No. 9 (9.1 & 9.2) Incorrect calculation of interest under section 234B of Ground No. 10 (10.1 to 10.3) the Act Levy of additional interest under section 234C

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Section 14A of the Act were applicable after recording with reasons as\nto why the claim of the Appellant was incorrect and there was no such finding in the Cross\nObjector's case.\n7.\nThe Cross Objector prays that the AO be directed to delete the disallowance of\nadministrative expenses of Rs. 10, 67, 21,089/-, u/s. 14A.\n8.\nWithout

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

67,147 claimed by\nthe assessee under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was disallowed by the AO.\n8.\nThe

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

1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and\nreduce the total income accordingly.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease premium paid in\nrespect of various leasehold properties of Rs.4,08,67,975 and the Hon'ble\nCIT

DHOOT TRADING & AGENCIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3 (3) (1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue [ITA No

67,343/- under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act after making an addition of INR 41,19,00,374/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal against the addition of INR 41,19,00,374/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Further

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHREE DHOOT TRADING & AGENCIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue [ITA No

67,343/- under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act after making an addition of INR 41,19,00,374/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal against the addition of INR 41,19,00,374/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Further