Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.45 seconds)
M/S. Icici Bank Ltd ( Erstwhile Icici ... vs The Dy Cit Rg 3(1), Mumbai on 27 April, 2023 cites

Commnr. Of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. on 28 March, 2003

Since the CIT(A) had followed the order of his predecessor for the Assessment Year 2000-01, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Chemicals (256 ITR 395 (Bombay) and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. : 298 ITR 194 (SC). In view of the aforesaid, Ground No. [4] raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 87 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 5 September, 2014

and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.). As far as disallowance of administrative expenses is concerned, it is the contention of the assessee that in the preceding assessment year, it has voluntarily disallowed 1% of the administrative expenditure attributable to earning of exempt income. However, we have noted, in assessment year 2001-02, the Tribunal while deciding the issue in Revenue's appeal being ITA no.393/Mum./ 2008, dated 2nd March 2016, has restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for considering afresh. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh keeping in view the directions of the Tribunal in the preceding assessment year. Thus, ground no.2, raised by the Revenue corresponding to ground no.3, raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 686 - Full Document

Reliance Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Rg 3(3), Mumbai on 31 August, 2017

13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As far as disallowance of interest 20 ITA. No. 7589 & 7508/Mum/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 expenditure for computing net exempt income is concerned, we are of the view that if the investment made in exempt income yielding assets are made out of interest free funds available with the assessee, there cannot be any disallowance of interest expenditure. Therefore, what is required to be seen is whether sufficient interest free funds are available with the assessee to make investment in exempt income yielding assets. As per facts and material on record, surplus interest free funds available with the assessee far exceeds the investment made in tax free interest income yielding assets, therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 275 - Full Document

Dcit 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., ... on 23 March, 2022

Since the CIT(A) had followed the order of his predecessor for the Assessment Year 2000-01, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Chemicals (256 ITR 395 (Bombay) and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. : 298 ITR 194 (SC). In view of the aforesaid, Ground No. [4] raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next