Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, Range10(2), Mumbai

DCIT -1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Lockheed Martinaerostructures Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…or computing expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of the exempt income which expenses needed to be disallowed. The AO relied upon decisions of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. DCIT reported in 234 CTR 1 (Bom) and decision of Special Bench of ITAT,Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. ITO reported in 317 ITR 86(AT). The AO invoked provisions of section 14A of the 1961 Act r.w.r. 8D of the 1962 Rules , wherein AO disallowed expenses of Rs. 39,84,218/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules r.w.s. 14A of the 1961 Act, being 0.5% of the average…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Investment P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…provided in Rule 8D(2). Thus the A.O. has to apply the provisions of Rule 8D only when he is not satisfied with the appellant's claim of disallowance u/s. 14A offered in the return of income. The Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boycee Mfg. Co. Ltd. 234 CTR 1 has also held that sub- sec.(2) of sec. 14A makes it abundantly clear that the power to apply the prescribed method (Rule 8D) arises only where the A.Q. is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee having regard to the accounts of assessee. In the ease under consideration the appellant itself has offered disallowance of Rs. 1,…

ACIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…provided in Rule 8D(2). Thus the A.O. has to apply the provisions of Rule 8D only when he is not satisfied with the appellant's claim of disallowance u/s. 14A offered in the return of income. The Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boycee Mfg. Co. Ltd. 234 CTR 1 has also held that sub- sec.(2) of sec. 14A makes it abundantly clear that the power to apply the prescribed method (Rule 8D) arises only where the A.Q. is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee having regard to the accounts of assessee. In the ease under consideration the appellant itself has offered disallowance of Rs. 1,…

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Express Newspapaers (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “G” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3664/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner of M/s Indian Express Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. Room No. 608, 6th Floor, Express Towers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) PAN No. AAACI2555F Revenue by : V Vidhyadhar, DR Assessee by : V Mohan, AR Date of hearing: 16-05-20…

Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue stood dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.923/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers Dcit 4(3) (P) Ltd., 206 Anand Bhavan, R.No. 649, 6 T H Floor, 17 Babugenu Road, Aaykar Bhavan, V. Princess Street, M K Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacp2213P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…o AY 2005-06 whereas section 14A(2) and (3) were introduced with prospective effect from AY 2007- 08. This decision cannot therefore provide support to the appellant's case. The jurisdictional Bombay High Court has held in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 234 CTR 1 that rule 8D is applicable for and from A.Y.2008-09. The relevant statute that was applicable from the AY 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 show that section 14A(2) & 14A(3) read with Rule 8D have to be invoked by the assessing officer. The action of the assessing Officer is thus upheld on this account.” Thus, the learned CIT(A) by following the decision…

Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Products India P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singha.C.I.T. Circle – 11(3)(2) Room No.427, Aayakar Bhavan 4Th Floor, M.K. Marg Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Zoetis Pharmaceutical Research Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Pfizer Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd.,) 5, Patel Estate, Off. S.V. Road Jogeshwari (W),Mumbai-400 012 Pan:Aadcp5293L .... Respondent

…Assessment Order." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance made U/S.14A by ignoring the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Boyce Mfg. 234 CTR 1 (Bom) ". 5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary. 3 M/s.Zoetis Pharmaceutical Research Pvt. Ltd (Formerly known as Pfizer Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd.,) 3. We may…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Trading & Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4259/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-3(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Edelweiss Trading & Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Holding Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Edelweiss Commodities 400020 Ltd.) 1, Edelweiss House, Off, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Mumbai- 400098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce3819M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajan Vora सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17. 01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.03.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 8, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit{A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,74,59,362/- Made By Assessing Officer On Account Of Mark To Market Loss A.Y.2011-12

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4259/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT-3(1)(2) बिधम/ M/s. Edelweiss Trading & Room No. 607, 6th Floor, Holding Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Edelweiss Commodities 400020 Ltd.) 1, Edelweiss House, Off, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Mumbai- 400098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCE3819M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR) Assessee by: Shri Rajan Vora सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing:…

Narendra Kushalraj Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL"B" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri G.S. Pannu, Accountant Member and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA Nos.6278 & 6259/Mum/2012 (Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10) Shri Narendra Kushalraj Kothari Deputy Commissioner of 275, Mapla Mahal, J.S.S. Road Income Tax – 5(2) Vs. Thakurdwar Corner, Girgaum Mumbai Mumbai 400004 PAN – AACPK6517E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Suman Kumar Date of Hearing: 08.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 29.11.2017 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, J.M. These two appeals by the assessee under Section 253 of the Income Tax Ac…

Narendra Kushalraj Kothari, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL"B" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri G.S. Pannu, Accountant Member and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA Nos.6278 & 6259/Mum/2012 (Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10) Shri Narendra Kushalraj Kothari Deputy Commissioner of 275, Mapla Mahal, J.S.S. Road Income Tax – 5(2) Vs. Thakurdwar Corner, Girgaum Mumbai Mumbai 400004 PAN – AACPK6517E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Suman Kumar Date of Hearing: 08.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 29.11.2017 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, J.M. These two appeals by the assessee under Section 253 of the Income Tax Ac…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Internaiotnal Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

DCIT Cir 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Nenshi L. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed, for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…r disallowing expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income, invoked rule 8D and worked out disallowance of Rs.38,01,190. In the process, the AO has taken support from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd 234 CTR 1 and ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in the case of Chemivest Ltd vs ITO 317 ITR 86 (Del)(SB). Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3. Before the CIT(A), the assessee has taken a plea that its investments are mainly in the group companies, which are made with the intention of exercising control and not with the i…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

…as not earned any dividend income during the year from investment and it has not incurred any indirect expenses also. The assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 234 CTR 1 contended that provisions of Rule 8D is not applicable to the impugned assessment year. The AO, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee. He observed, the assessee has taken loans and paid interest on them. It has also debited indirect expenses. The AO observed, the investment portfolio yielding dividend income has to be monit…

Cox and Kings Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

…as not earned any dividend income during the year from investment and it has not incurred any indirect expenses also. The assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 234 CTR 1 contended that provisions of Rule 8D is not applicable to the impugned assessment year. The AO, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee. He observed, the assessee has taken loans and paid interest on them. It has also debited indirect expenses. The AO observed, the investment portfolio yielding dividend income has to be monit…

Morgan Stanley Investment Management P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Morgan Stanley Investment Dy. Commissioner Of Management Private Limited Income Tax – 1(2) 18F/19F, Tower-2, One Indiabulls Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Centre, 841 Senapati Bapt Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan No.Aaacm4066F Appellant .. Respondent .. S/Shri Sunil M Lala, Assessee By Rahul Jain & Rahul Vora, Ars’ Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 18-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 20-09-2017

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM Morgan Stanley Investment Dy. Commissioner of Management Private Limited Income Tax – 1(2) 18F/19F, Tower-2, One Indiabulls Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Centre, 841 Senapati Bapt Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 PAN No.AAACM4066F Appellant .. Respondent .. S/Shri Sunil M Lala, Assessee by Rahul Jain & Rahul Vora, ARs’ Revenue by .. Shri Suman Kumar, DR Date of hearing .. 18-09-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 20-09-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of…