Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

16 results for “TDS”+ Section 88Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai16 Kolkata6 Delhi5 Pune1

Key Topics

Section 88E26 Section 143(3)21 Section 115J17 Section 94(7)16 Section 14A15 Addition to Income13 Section 4011 Disallowance9 Section 1438 Section 194J7 Business Income7 Double Taxation/DTAA6

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. CHOKHANI SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6602/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhita No. 6603/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri B.S.BistFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dedhia

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 88ESection 94(7)

TDS or advance tax which were treated as payment of tax u/s. 199 and 219 of the Act, that the provisions of Section 88E

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3981/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

section 88E in respect of the securities transaction tax (STT) paid on purchase and sale of shares and mutual funds. 3.1 Facts qua the issues are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged as Non-Banking Finance Company [NBFC] in the business of leasing, Hire purchase and other financial activities was assessed u/s 143(3) at Rs.7

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3982/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

section 88E in respect of the securities transaction tax (STT) paid on purchase and sale of shares and mutual funds. 3.1 Facts qua the issues are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged as Non-Banking Finance Company [NBFC] in the business of leasing, Hire purchase and other financial activities was assessed u/s 143(3) at Rs.7

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. LARSEN & TOUBRO FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4459/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

section 88E in respect of the securities transaction tax (STT) paid on purchase and sale of shares and mutual funds. 3.1 Facts qua the issues are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged as Non-Banking Finance Company [NBFC] in the business of leasing, Hire purchase and other financial activities was assessed u/s 143(3) at Rs.7

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

section 88E in respect of the securities transaction tax (STT) paid on purchase and sale of shares and mutual funds. 3.1 Facts qua the issues are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged as Non-Banking Finance Company [NBFC] in the business of leasing, Hire purchase and other financial activities was assessed u/s 143(3) at Rs.7

DCIT CIR 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri P.K. Bansal, Vp & Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm The Deputy Commissioner State Bank Of Saurashtra Of Income Tax, Circle- (Now Merged With Sbi) 2(2)(1), Mumbai Financial Reporting & Office Of The Dcit-2(2)(1) Taxation Department 3 Rd Vs. Floor, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaccs9880R

For Appellant: C Naresh, ARFor Respondent: MN Swamy, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 88E

88E of the Act and for grant of balance amount of refund. The AO rectified the mistake vide order under section 154 of the Act dated 28-05- 2014 but refund granted to the assessee was not adjusted first against interest and hence, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee vide Para

GNANA KATHIR SINGARAYAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5503/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Magnum Equity The Acit Circle 4 (3), बनाम/ Broking Ltd., Room No. 638, 6Th Vs. D-30, Empire Mahal, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 806, Dr. B A Road, M.K. Road, Khodadad, Mumbai - 400023 Mumbai - 400014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5661N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 88E

TDS credit on rent received but the rental income was not reflected in the return of income and further the assessee company has claimed higher credit of Security Transaction Tax (STT) rebate u/s 88E of the Act. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. In compliance, the assessee filed the return of income on 22.03.2013 with

MAGNUM EQUITY BROKING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 4(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5503/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Magnum Equity The Acit Circle 4 (3), बनाम/ Broking Ltd., Room No. 638, 6Th Vs. D-30, Empire Mahal, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 806, Dr. B A Road, M.K. Road, Khodadad, Mumbai - 400023 Mumbai - 400014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5661N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 88E

TDS credit on rent received but the rental income was not reflected in the return of income and further the assessee company has claimed higher credit of Security Transaction Tax (STT) rebate u/s 88E of the Act. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. In compliance, the assessee filed the return of income on 22.03.2013 with

DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. D GAS SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be Dismissed

ITA 153/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.153/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit 4(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. G Das Share & Stock Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Off No. 6, 2Nd Floor. 20 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Rajabahadur Mansin, Ambalal Doshi Marg, Fort Mumbai. 400023 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg1362K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri S.M. Bandi (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20. 12.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.10.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Rebate Available To An Assessee U/S 88E Of The Act Was Liable To Be Adjusted While Computing Tax Liability U/S 115Jb Of The Act By Relying On The Decision Of

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Bandi (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 88E

TDS or advance tax or self assessment tax paid under the IT Act, and thus, if tax payable after allowing rebate u/s 88E is less than 10% of its book profit, provision of section

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

TDS provisions in the case of residents and curb bogus payments. Moreover, though Section 194J was inserted with effect from 1/7/1995, till the assessment year in question that is AY 2005-06 both the revenue and the assessee proceeded on the footing that Section 194J was not applicable to the payment of transaction charges and accordingly, during the period from

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

TDS provisions in the case of residents and curb bogus payments. Moreover, though Section 194J was inserted with effect from 1/7/1995, till the assessment year in question that is AY 2005-06 both the revenue and the assessee proceeded on the footing that Section 194J was not applicable to the payment of transaction charges and accordingly, during the period from

DCIT -4(1), MUMBAI vs. FOUR DIMENSION SECURITIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 790/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

TDS provisions in the case of residents and curb bogus payments. Moreover, though Section 194J was inserted with effect from 1/7/1995, till the assessment year in question that is AY 2005-06 both the revenue and the assessee proceeded on the footing that Section 194J was not applicable to the payment of transaction charges and accordingly, during the period from

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3758/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainil&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai L&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh a/w

88E for STT paid by the assessee. During hearing before us, Ld. AR fairly conceded that the amount of STCG earned by the assessee included certain intra-day gains / losses which were in the nature of speculation and hence were required to be excluded while arriving at figures of STCG. Therefore, at the outset, we direct Ld. AO to exclude

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5336/MUM/2015[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 88E

88E of the Act and for grant of balance amount of refund. The AO rectified the mistake vide order under section 154 of the Act dated 28-05- 2014 but refund granted to the assessee was not adjusted first against interest and hence, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee vide Para

LABDHI STOCK & DERIVATIVES SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1723/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 37Section 40Section 88E

section 194J for the purpose of tax deduction at source. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO has erred in disallowing VSAT and lease line charges u/s 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS. Hence, we direct the AO to delete the addition. 5. The next issue that came up for our consideration is disallowance

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2522/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Chauhan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rohit Kumar (DR)

Section 14ASection 40

88E to Rs.23,33,544/- as against Rs.31,39,647/- claimed by the appellant and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals