STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act and not subject to limits prescribed under section 44C of the Income-tax Act} as against expenses of Rs. 14,23,74,212/- claimed in the return. Page 62 of 72 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

68. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 69. The assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal which is as follows: Additional Ground Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO be directed to allow the deduction for entire expenses incurred at the head office as is attributable to the business

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

68. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 69. The assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal which is as follows: Additional Ground Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO be directed to allow the deduction for entire expenses incurred at the head office as is attributable to the business

DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. HONGKONG & SANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

44C of the Act. In the caseof American Express Bank Ltd in which a different view was take by the Tribunal has since been reversed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide judgement dated 17th July, 2003 and a copy of the said judgement was placed before us at pages 16 to 18 of the paper book. Learned counsel

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

44C of the Act. In the caseof American Express Bank Ltd in which a different view was take by the Tribunal has since been reversed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide judgement dated 17th July, 2003 and a copy of the said judgement was placed before us at pages 16 to 18 of the paper book. Learned counsel

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

44C of the Act. In the caseof American Express Bank Ltd in which a different view was take by the Tribunal has since been reversed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide judgement dated 17th July, 2003 and a copy of the said judgement was placed before us at pages 16 to 18 of the paper book. Learned counsel

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

44C of the Act. In the caseof American Express Bank Ltd in which a different view was take by the Tribunal has since been reversed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide judgement dated 17th July, 2003 and a copy of the said judgement was placed before us at pages 16 to 18 of the paper book. Learned counsel

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

44C of the Act which\nwas set-aside by the Ld.CIT(A) relying on ITAT orders in assessee's own\ncase and Ld.CIT(A) orders for the past assessment years. The\nDepartment raised this new ground of taxability of salaries to expatriates\nunder section 28(iv) of the Act for the first time before the Hon'ble ITAT\nbench

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

section 37(1) and should not\nbe restricted under section 44C of the Act. Respectfully following\nthe decision of coordinate bench and judicial pronouncements\nrelied upon by the assessee, we are in agreement with the\ncontentions of assessee and ground raised by the assessee is\nallowed.\"\nPage No. | 53\n54. Further, the Coordinate Bench in assessee

DCIT (IT)1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BAHRAIN AND KUWAIT BSC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 44C of the Act. In reply, assessee submitted that NRI desk expenses have been certified by independent firm of Chartered Accountants as having been incurred by the Head Office for and on behalf of the assessee Bank’s Indian branches. The assessee provided the breakup of NRI desk expenses in terms of the aforesaid certificate, as under

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

44C of the Act which\nwas set-aside by the Ld.CIT(A) relying on ITAT orders in assessee's own\ncase and Ld.CIT(A) orders for the past assessment years. The\nDepartment raised this new ground of taxability of salaries to expatriates\nunder section 28(iv) of the Act for the first time before the Hon'ble ITAT\nbench

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

44C of the Act which\nPage No. 5\nwas set-aside by the Ld.CIT(A) relying on ITAT orders in assessee's own\ncase and Ld.CIT(A) orders for the past assessment years. The\nDepartment raised this new ground of taxability of salaries to expatriates\nunder section 28(iv) of the Act for the first time before

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

68 held that the Tribunal held that the sale was a slump sale if it was a sale of a going concern, even if some of the assets were retained by the transferor and sections 50 and 50A of the Act were not applicable. In this case, the assessee has transferred a business asset and the business asset

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

68,000 under section 28 of the Act. I.T.A. No. 3691/Mum/2023 I.T.A. No. 4722/Mum/2023 3 9. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 1962, for the year under consideration. 10. The CIT(A) erred in upholding action

DOHA BANK , INDIA BRANCHES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)4(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodit(Tp)A Nos.3684 & 3685/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

68,054 investment 0.5% of Average value of 12,340 investment of Rs./- Total A & B [] 64,605 4. On a perusal of the assessee‟s financial statements, it was further observed by the A.O that the assessee had reduced a sum of Rs. 25,25,634/- being 5% of the “adjusted total income” under Sec. 44C

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

68,000 under section 28 of the Act.\n3\n9. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read\nwith Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 1962, for the year under consideration.\n10. The CIT(A) erred in upholding action of the AO in not including the amount taxed

DCIT (IT) 3(1),MUMBAI vs. OMAN INTERNAITONAL BANK S.A.O.G., MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4174/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

68,864/– on account of interest paid to the Head Office. However in the computation of income, the assessee has added back to the total income stating that the same is not claimed a deduction in view of the fact it is a payment to self and hence no expenses incurred on amount of payment to self. However, AO observed

DBS BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakar Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

section 44C in allowing head office expenses of Rs. 68,81,733/- In Cross objection the assessee bank has raised