MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

14 A of the Act or in other words shall suffer disallowance u/s 14A of the Act being incurred in relation to earning of an income which does not form part of the total income of the taxpayer. We have observed that the assessee firm has relied upon following case laws: a) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Private Limited

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

14 A of the Act or in other words shall suffer disallowance u/s 14A of the Act being incurred in relation to earning of an income which does not form part of the total income of the taxpayer. We have observed that the assessee firm has relied upon following case laws: a) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Private Limited

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

iii), therefore, it's true nature is nothing but added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required to be deducted. to be deducted. 12. In the light of the overall discussion made hereinabove, we 2

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

14 M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., share exceeding such limit to any particular reinsurer, the insurer may seek the specific approval of the Authority giving reasons for such cession. (10) Every insurer shall offer an opportunity to other Indian insurers including the Indian Reinsurer to participate in its facultative and treaty surpluses before placement of such cessions outside

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

iii) of the Rules by taking an amount equal to ½ percent of the average value of investment. Here also according to learned Counsel of the assessee the CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that the disallowance made by AO at Rs.19,48,912/-. We have verified this fact and find Page 4 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

iii) of the Rules by taking an amount equal to ½ percent of the average value of investment. Here also according to learned Counsel of the assessee the CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that the disallowance made by AO at Rs.19,48,912/-. We have verified this fact and find Page 4 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

iii) of the Rules by taking an amount equal to ½ percent of the average value of investment. Here also according to learned Counsel of the assessee the CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that the disallowance made by AO at Rs.19,48,912/-. We have verified this fact and find Page 4 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

iii) of the Rules by taking an amount equal to ½ percent of the average value of investment. Here also according to learned Counsel of the assessee the CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that the disallowance made by AO at Rs.19,48,912/-. We have verified this fact and find Page 4 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2) of the Rules. We find that it is the duty of the ld. AO to record objective satisfaction with cogent reasons as to why the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Without recording such objective satisfaction with cogent reasons, the ld. AO cannot proceed directly to apply the computation

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2) of the Rules. We find that it is the duty of the ld. AO to record objective satisfaction with cogent reasons as to why the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Without recording such objective satisfaction with cogent reasons, the ld. AO cannot proceed directly to apply the computation

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

III. The introduction of the word ‘deduction’ in Section 10A by the amendment, in the absence of any contrary material, and in view of the scope of the deductions contemplated by Section 10A as already discussed, ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 28 it has to be understood that the Section embodies a clear enunciation of the legislative decision to alter

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

III. The introduction of the word ‘deduction’ in Section 10A by the amendment, in the absence of any contrary material, and in view of the scope of the deductions contemplated by Section 10A as already discussed, ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 28 it has to be understood that the Section embodies a clear enunciation of the legislative decision to alter

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

14 A." (emphasis supplied) 3.11. Sub-section (1) of section 14A clearly stipulates that for the purposes of computing total income under Chapter IV (Computation of Total Income), no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure “incurred” by the assessee “in relation to” income which does not form part of M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. the total income under

ACIT 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS MAHARASTRA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

iii) of the Act. Section 37 is a residuary section which allows business expenditure in computing residuary section which allows business expenditure in computing residuary section which allows business expenditure in computing the taxable business income of an Assessee. Expenses allowed as the taxable business income of an Assessee. Expenses allowed as the taxable business income of an Assessee. Expenses