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 - Ground No. 1 to 15 (ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18 (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenditure - Ground No. 19 to 22 50. The assessee vide letter dated 04.12.2018 raised the following additional grounds: “Additional Ground No. 1: Deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP

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 - Ground No. 1 to 15 (ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18 (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenditure - Ground No. 19 to 22 50. The assessee vide letter dated 04.12.2018 raised the following additional grounds: “Additional Ground No. 1: Deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. GREATSHIP(INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

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

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short ‘IT Rules’] in addition to the suo-moto disallowance of INR 21,69

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

section 14A\nGround No. 1 to 15\n(ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18\n(iii) Disallowance of prior period expenditure\nGround No. 19 to 22\n50.\nThe assessee vide letter dated 04.12.2018 raised the following additional\ngrounds:\n“Additional Ground No. 1: Deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of Employee\nStock Option

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

69 & 70/Mum/2009) dated 5 April 2013 (Mumbai Tribunal). 4.2 On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that in the case of Maxopp. Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC), it is held that dominant purpose for which investment into shares is made by assessee may not be relevant as section 14A applies irrespective of whether shares

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] &

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, 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

section 14A\nGround No. 1 to 15\n(ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18\n(iii) Disallowance of prior period expenditure\nGround No. 19 to 22\n50.\nThe assessee vide letter dated 04.12.2018 raised the following additional\ngrounds:\n“Additional Ground No. 1: Deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of Employee\nStock Option

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

Section 115JB of the Act after making addition and disallowances. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) which was partly allowed by the CIT(A) vide order, dated 19/03/2019. The CIT(A), inter alia, granted the following relief to the Assessee - (a) deleted the disallowance of INR 69

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(i) since the own funds of the Assessee were only INR 1355,19,82,325/- [as opposed to INR 12806,13,99,023/- computed by the CIT(A)] and therefore, the CIT(A) erred in arriving at the conclusion that the Assessee had sufficient interest free own funds to make

DISH TV INDIA LTD vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumardish Tv India Ltd. Fc–19, Firm City, Sector–16A ……………. Appellant Noida 400 063 Pan – Aaaca5478M V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–11(1), Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–16(1), Mumbai V/S Dish Tv India Ltd. 135, Continental Building Dr. A.B. Road, Worli ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaaca5478M

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in S.K. Tekriwal (supra). He submitted, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT v/s PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd., [2015] 60 taxmann.com 69

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

Section 115JB of the Act after making\naddition and disallowances.\n3.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A)\nwhich was partly allowed by the CIT(A) vide order, dated\n19/03/2019. The CIT(A), inter alia, granted the following relief to\nthe Assessee (a) deleted the disallowance of INR 69

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENDUS CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jcit (Osd)-14(1)(1), M/S Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, 901, Platina, 9Th Floor, Plot No. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C59, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aabcc 2404 Q Appellant Respondent

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even when the taxpayer in disallowance of the expenditure even when the taxpayer in disallowance of the expenditure even when the taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income. a particular year has not earned any exempt income. a particular year has not earned any exempt