“Section 40(2)”

MR. SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP. M/S S.D. CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-31(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14

further examination and verification at the level of AO whether the payees have disclosed these payments as receipts in their respective returns. To section 40(2)(ia) with an observation that if the payees of the interest in above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns

MR. SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP. M/S S.D. CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-31(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14

further examination and verification at the level of AO whether the payees have disclosed these payments as receipts in their respective returns. To section 40(2)(ia) with an observation that if the payees of the interest in above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns

MR SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP. M/S S.D. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-31(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14

further examination and verification at the level of AO whether the payees have disclosed these payments as receipts in their respective returns. To section 40(2)(ia) with an observation that if the payees of the interest in above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns

MR. SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP. M/S. S.D.CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 31(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14

further examination and verification at the level of AO whether the payees have disclosed these payments as receipts in their respective returns. To section 40(2)(ia) with an observation that if the payees of the interest in above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns

MR. SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP. M/S. S.D CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 31(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14

further examination and verification at the level of AO whether the payees have disclosed these payments as receipts in their respective returns. To section 40(2)(ia) with an observation that if the payees of the interest in above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns

MR. SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP. OF M/S. S.D.CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-31(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14

further examination and verification at the level of AO whether the payees have disclosed these payments as receipts in their respective returns. To section 40(2)(ia) with an observation that if the payees of the interest in above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns

ACIT-32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

case the rate of interest cannot be questioned by the AO especially when the interest is not paid to the persons specified in Section 40(2)(b the interest is not paid to the persons specified in Section 40(2)(b the interest is not paid to the persons specified ... Section 40(2)(b) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builder

ACIT 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

case the rate of interest cannot be questioned by the AO especially when the interest is not paid to the persons specified in Section 40(2)(b the interest is not paid to the persons specified in Section 40(2)(b the interest is not paid to the persons specified ... Section 40(2)(b) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builder

MR. PANKAJ SEVANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-30(2)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

erred in confirming Assessing Officer's action of disallowing interest expense of Rs 23,210 paid to Mr Vimal Shah under section 40(2)(b) of the Act. Your appellant submits that the arbitrary action of the Assessing Officer is unwarranted and ought to be quashed and annulled. Without prejudice ... interest paid to other unsecured creditors was @ 10% to 12% and as such excess interest at the rate of 7% paid under section 40(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short 'the Act') to Vimal P. Shah which comes to Rs.23,210/- is disallowed and added