THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS at source are not applicable on reinsurance commission and accordingly the order under section 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) was set aside. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that this order has been followed in the assessee’s own case in the earlier years and Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance following these orders

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS at source are not applicable on reinsurance commission and accordingly the order under section 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) was set aside. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that this order has been followed in the assessee’s own case in the earlier years and Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance following these orders

DCIT - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO .LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.3151 & 3149/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3(2)(2) M/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K Road, New India Assurance Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 87, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai -400 001

44A read with First Schedule and therefore, the provisions of section 115JB do not apply to the assessee’s case. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” 16. Respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding that the provisions of section 115JB have no application to the assessee. Ground No.6

PRATIMA H. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 23, MUMBAI

44A, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road Àayakar Bhavan. M.K. Road Vs. Worli, Mumbai 400018 Mumbai 400020 PANABNPM8226G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/6633/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 1997-98 वष" Smt. Pratima H. Mehta Vs. DCIT, Central Cricle-23 Worli, Mumbai 400018 Àayakar Bhavan

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

TDS in time, this includes interest expenses of Rs. 19.41 Cr. Further the assessee has sold some of the units in the current year and claimed full interest expenses on those units. Hence proportionate interest has to be allocated Therefore the interest expenses to the extent of Rs. 15.96 Cr is not allowed. Since the assessee has already disallowed interest

M/S SYS-PRO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2526/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Sys-Pro Technologies Dcit (Osd) – 2(3), बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, V. 901, 9 Th Floor, M.K. Road, Umarji House, Mumbai – 400 020. Teli Gulli, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacb4501E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 37 of the Act. Mere payment by itself would not entitle the tax-payer to the deduction of a particular expenditure unless the same is proved to be paid for commercial considerations. It was observed by the CIT(A) that all expenditure incurred by the tax-payer though voluntary which is ultimately designed to further the objects and purposes

JANAK VITHALDAS VYAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing)

section 147 of the Act. The assessee was asked to file return of income. The AO recorded that no response was made by assessee. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 24/11/2021 but no compliance was made. Ultimately, the assessee filed return of income on 20/12/2021 declaring incomer of Rs.14,39,080/-. The case was reopened

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

TDS and other payments and, therefore, they cannot be attributable to any particular source of income and also required to be excluded while computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. 51.2. Further the learned AR relied on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

TDS and other payments and, therefore, they cannot be attributable to any particular source of income and also required to be excluded while computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. 51.2. Further the learned AR relied on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT