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\n14A r.w.r 8D and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.\nDisallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2\n16.\nThe AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid\ncommission of Rs.17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return of\nincome has made a disallowance of Rs.50

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

disallowance under section 14 A to the extent of Rs. 311,976,518/– as under: 0.5% of average investments (including subsidiaries) Rs. 30,84,14,003 and 74

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] &

disallowance under section 14 A to the extent of Rs. 311,976,518/– as under: – 0.5% of average investments (including subsidiaries) Rs. 30,84,14,003 and 74

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\n14A r.w.r 8D and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.\n13\nITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16\nBajaj Electricals Limited\nDisallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2\n16.\nThe AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid\ncommission of Rs.17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return

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

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 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

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/:-\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/-\n2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-:\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

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

74,000 was a provision for investment relating to the equity shares on prudent basis. The learned assessing officer held that the guidelines issued by the reserve bank of India are not determinative to grant any deduction to the assessee Under the income tax act. Therefore, the entire depreciation provided in the books of ₹ 160,152,000 was disallowed

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

74,000 was a provision for investment relating to the equity shares on prudent basis. The learned assessing officer held that the guidelines issued by the reserve bank of India are not determinative to grant any deduction to the assessee Under the income tax act. Therefore, the entire depreciation provided in the books of ₹ 160,152,000 was disallowed

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

74,000 was a provision for investment relating to the equity shares on prudent basis. The learned assessing officer held that the guidelines issued by the reserve bank of India are not determinative to grant any deduction to the assessee Under the income tax act. Therefore, the entire depreciation provided in the books of ₹ 160,152,000 was disallowed

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

74,000 was a provision for investment relating to the equity shares on prudent basis. The learned assessing officer held that the guidelines issued by the reserve bank of India are not determinative to grant any deduction to the assessee Under the income tax act. Therefore, the entire depreciation provided in the books of ₹ 160,152,000 was disallowed

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

74,000 was a provision for investment relating to the equity shares on prudent basis. The learned assessing officer held that the guidelines issued by the reserve bank of India are not determinative to grant any deduction to the assessee Under the income tax act. Therefore, the entire depreciation provided in the books of ₹ 160,152,000 was disallowed

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

74,000 was a provision for investment relating to the equity shares on prudent basis. The learned assessing officer held that the guidelines issued by the reserve bank of India are not determinative to grant any deduction to the assessee Under the income tax act. Therefore, the entire depreciation provided in the books of ₹ 160,152,000 was disallowed

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

Bench: us. 2.

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(i) & 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules deleted by the CIT(A). 4.2. The facts relevant for adjudication of the grounds under consideration are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee has earned dividend income amounting to INR 74

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-:\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

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

Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 45 read with section 47(iv) of the Act on slump sale of business of Rs. 742,82,74