“disallowance u/s 14A”

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telagana vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29/05/2014 determining the total loss at Rs 165,12,14,527/- after making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs 15,69,613/-. In the said assessment dated 29/05/2014, credit for TDS was given

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telangana vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29/05/2014 determining the total loss at Rs 165,12,14,527/- after making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs 15,69,613/-. In the said assessment dated 29/05/2014, credit for TDS was given

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29/05/2014 determining the total loss at Rs 165,12,14,527/- after making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs 15,69,613/-. In the said assessment dated 29/05/2014, credit for TDS was given

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29/05/2014 determining the total loss at Rs 165,12,14,527/- after making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs 15,69,613/-. In the said assessment dated 29/05/2014, credit for TDS was given

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT(Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29/05/2014 determining the total loss at Rs 165,12,14,527/- after making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs 15,69,613/-. In the said assessment dated 29/05/2014, credit for TDS was given

Grasim Industries Ltd.(As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

original appeal of the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT was relating to the CIT (Al's direction to re-compute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the Assessing Officer u/r 8D(2) (fir) of the IT Rules, 1962 and did not contain objection

Grasim Industries Ltd.(As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC -1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

original appeal of the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT was relating to the CIT (Al's direction to re-compute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the Assessing Officer u/r 8D(2) (fir) of the IT Rules, 1962 and did not contain objection

M/S. Gyanshankar Investment & Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(`1) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Gyanshankar Vs. Ito-35(1)(5) Investment & Trading Aayakar Bhavan, Company Pvt. Ltd. Maharishi Carve Road, 1601, Marathon Heights, Mumbai - 400020 P.B. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcg83362R Appellant .. Respondent

appeal of the assessee holding that there was no substance in the assessee’s alternative contention made before the A.O that the disallowance u/s 14A should be restricted to Rs.31,18,388/- being equal to the exempt income earned during the year. 4. Heard both the sides and perused ... Demat charges of Rs.4293/- was incurred by it in relation to the dividend income earned by it. The assessee submitted that no disallowance u/s 14A could be made when the assessee has not incurred/claimed any expenditure for earning the exempt income. The assessee has also referred the decision of ITAT

Bhupati Investments & Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Bhupati Investments Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-6 B-34/35, 3Rd Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Paragon Condominium, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Pandurang Budhkar Road, Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb0441P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aarti Vissanji Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-6, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pr. Cit) Erred In Passing An Order U/S 263 & Directing The Assessing Officer To Modify The Order Dated 16/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Your Appellants Submit That The Order Of The Pr. Cit Is Illegal, Bad In Law & Void & The Same Ought To Be Quashed.

quashed. 13. The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the fact that the learned Assessing Officer has correctly considered the working of Disallowance u/s. 14A as per Rule 8D, 2. The learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that the Disallowance u/s. 14A accepted by the Assessing officer in the original ... further erred in holding that only those Investments which have earned exempt income during the year were considered while working out Disallowance u/s. 14A as per Rule 8D. Your Appellants submit that the Assessing officer has correctly accepted the Disallowance u/s 14A as per Rule 8D as worked

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

considered without prejudice to one another. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) Disallowance u/s 14A 1. erred in directing the AO to compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, by invoking the provisions of Rule ... satisfaction for rejection of the disallowance computed by the appellant under section 14A of the Act. 2. erred in directing to make the disallowance u/s 14A being higher of 0.5% of average value of investments which have yielded exempt income during the year or expenses disallowed by the assessee

ACIT -3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

considered without prejudice to one another. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) Disallowance u/s 14A 1. erred in directing the AO to compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, by invoking the provisions of Rule ... satisfaction for rejection of the disallowance computed by the appellant under section 14A of the Act. 2. erred in directing to make the disallowance u/s 14A being higher of 0.5% of average value of investments which have yielded exempt income during the year or expenses disallowed by the assessee

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

revenue, therefore this ground of appeal of the revenue also stand dismissed. 8. During the course of assessment the A.O had computed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D to the amount of Rs.8,83,326/-. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3032 & 3247, 2947/Mum/2018 17 DCIT

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

revenue, therefore this ground of appeal of the revenue also stand dismissed. 8. During the course of assessment the A.O had computed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D to the amount of Rs.8,83,326/-. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3032 & 3247, 2947/Mum/2018 17 DCIT

Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- Circle -8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

revenue, therefore this ground of appeal of the revenue also stand dismissed. 8. During the course of assessment the A.O had computed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D to the amount of Rs.8,83,326/-. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3032 & 3247, 2947/Mum/2018 17 DCIT

DCIT Cent. Cir -4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Inorbit Malls (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2220/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Central Cir-4(2) M/S. Inorbit Malls P.Ltd Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Plot No.C-30,Bnlock-G, Air India Bldg, Nariman Opp Sidbi Bank, Bkc, Point Mumbai 400021 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai 400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaack9106G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ganesh Bare, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

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 of 2014 dated ... CBDT." iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the IT Act without 3 I.T.A. No. 2220/Mum/2021 M/s. Inorbit Malls Pvt. Ltd. realizing

Nayara Energy Limited (on Behalf of Merged Entity Vadinar Oil Terminal Limited), Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.777/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nayara Energy Ltd (On Acit, Central Circle-2(1) बिधम/ Behalf Of Merged Entity Room No. 804, Pratishtha Vs. Vadinar Oil Terminal Ltd) Bhavan, Old Cgo 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Annexe, M. K. Road, Godrej Bkc, G- Block, Plot Mumbai-400020. C-68, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2626D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 36(1) (Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act The Act - Rs.149.80 Crores 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) & Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.149.80 Crores Pertaining To Loans Of Rs.1253.53 Crores Granted To Related Parties Contending Them To Be Interest Free Without Appreciating The Fact, That Out Of The Total Amount, Only Security Deposits Of Rs.96.53 Crores Are Interest Free Refundable

Ground no. 1 to 3 are are allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Coming to the ground no. 4 to 7 which are regarding disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules (hereinafter “the Rules”) of Rs.18.50 crores. 16. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee brought ... wherein their Lordship’s has held that when the assessee had not earned exempt income then no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was warranted. However, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 did not accept the contention of assessee. So the appeal

M/S Pmt Machines Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT Mumbai Central Cir, 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Machines Ltd. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the total investment for calculation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest under Section 14A without reducing interest of Rs.16,70,74,784/- disallowed u/s