“disallowance u/s 14A”

DCIT- CC- 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Shree Global Tradefin Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 7(1) Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. Mumbai 35, Ashok Chambers, Vs. Broach Street, Devji Ratansey Marg, Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 2975 J (Revenue) : (Assessee)

case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee and directing AO to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A, even when such restriction is contrary to statutory provisions and CBDT's Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 which provides for disallowance of expenditure ... that though the assessee had made suo moto disallowance of Rs.1,263/- and had claimed that no other expenses should be considered for disallowance u/s. 14A, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown substantial commission expenses including expenses under the head ‘other expenses’, which has justified

Shyamm Mariwala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -6(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shyamm Mariwala, Ito Ward-6(3)(3), 216, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400013. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Advpm 4940 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subhash Chhajed, Ar : Revenue By Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

assessee filed revised grounds of appeal which are reproduced as under: appeal which are reproduced as under:- Ground no. 1: Disallowance u/s 14A Ground no. 1: Disallowance u/s 14A amounting to amounting to 13,11,430/- 13,11,430/- a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... investment of Rs.6,22,67,077/ investment of Rs.6,22,67,077/-and therefore no disallowance u/s and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A is called for in the matter. 14A is called for in the matter. Ground no.2: Addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs.86,000 / Ground no.2: Addition u/s

Saigal Seatrade, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21 (3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

disallowance thereof made by the AO shall be deleted. 2.(a) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in making disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T./Rules without recording his dissatisfaction with respect to books of accounts of the Appellant. The Appellant submits that ... constitute own fund of the Appellant; hence, interest allowable u/s 40(b) of the Act shall not be considered for the purposes of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules. 3. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expense to the extent

ITO, Ward 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kumudini Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito, Ward 2(1), Thane Vs. M/S Kumudini Room No. 25, B-Wing Engineering Pvt Ltd 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park 601/602 D Wing Wagle Industrial Estt Shreepati Road, Thane(W)-400604 Poonam Sagar Maharashtra Complex, Mira Road (E), Thane – 401107 Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabco1260G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah.Ar Revenue By : Shritejinder Pal Singh Anand.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) – Delhi / Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

assessment order. Whereas the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations and the details and observed that the assessee has not made proper disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act as the assessee has incurred expenses directly relating to the earning exempt income. Finally the A.O. has applied ... with the Hon’ble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of dividend income earned. Whereas the AO has considered all the facts and made disallowance

M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

TPO/AO in making transfer pricing adjustment on account of alleged interest on loan given to various subsidiaries, transaction of corporate guarantee and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Non applicability of transfer pricing regulations 29/Mum/2018 & CO No. 21/Mum/2019 M/s. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances ... grounds of appeal no. 1 to 24 pertains to transfer pricing issues and ground no 25 and 26 are corporate tax additions on disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and ground no 27 and 28 are in respect of levy of interest u/s 234C and 234D

Reliance Industrial Investments and Holdings Limited (Successor of Reliance Petro Investment Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

considering only those investments which had yielded exempt income. The ld. AO is hereby directed to verify the said workings and recompute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2) of the Rules accordingly. By this process, even if the assessed income goes below the returned

M/S. Jk Investors (Bombay ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Modified Ground) On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, interest expenditure is not required to be disallowed u/s 14A rwr 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, when the appellant‟s own interest free funds is in excess of investments which have yielded exempt income ... Ground 1 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in making further disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Act of Rs. 58,54,452 over and above the suo moto disallowance made by the appellant

Shree Sainath Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshree Sainath Vs. Dcit, Enterprises, (Now Central Rang – 7(3) Converted Into Shree Room No. 655, 6Th Sainath Enterprises Floor, Aayakar Constructions & Bhavan, Maharshi Developers Pvt Ltd.,) Karve Road, 412, Floor – 4, 17G Mumbai – 400020. Vardhaman Chambers Cawasji Patel, Horniman Circle, Fort Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdfs2374M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Niraj Seth.Ar Respondent By : Shri S.K Jain.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal; Shree Sainath Enterprises, Mumbai. 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 46,94,439/-U/Sec36(1)(Iii).

whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO and in respect of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the CIT(A) has granted partial relief and confirmed the addition of interest and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

activity. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in remanding matter of disallowance u/s. 14A to the A.O. (ii) The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in concluding that decision of Hon. ITAT in appellants own case to hold ... further erred in holding that investments on which no exempted income (dividends) was received were also liable to be included for calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned. C.I.T.(A) ought to have directed

Sahana Builders Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 52, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54, Sagar Avenue, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Appellant Vs. Cit(A)-52, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Dy.Cit-4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54B, Junction Of S.V. Road & Lallubhai Park, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Amit Bothra & Ms. Manish Chandak, Ar Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. Dr M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

issue. 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act to the extent of exempt income received by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the Circular No.5

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

activity. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in remanding matter of disallowance u/s. 14A to the A.O. (ii) The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in concluding that decision of Hon. ITAT in appellants own case to hold ... further erred in holding that investments on which no exempted income (dividends) was received were also liable to be included for calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned. C.I.T.(A) ought to have directed

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

activity. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in remanding matter of disallowance u/s. 14A to the A.O. (ii) The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in concluding that decision of Hon. ITAT in appellants own case to hold ... further erred in holding that investments on which no exempted income (dividends) was received were also liable to be included for calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned. C.I.T.(A) ought to have directed

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

activity. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in remanding matter of disallowance u/s. 14A to the A.O. (ii) The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in concluding that decision of Hon. ITAT in appellants own case to hold ... further erred in holding that investments on which no exempted income (dividends) was received were also liable to be included for calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned. C.I.T.(A) ought to have directed

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

activity. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in remanding matter of disallowance u/s. 14A to the A.O. (ii) The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in concluding that decision of Hon. ITAT in appellants own case to hold ... further erred in holding that investments on which no exempted income (dividends) was received were also liable to be included for calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned. C.I.T.(A) ought to have directed