DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

iii) u/s 10(38) of the Act on u/s 10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. 9.1 The income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

iii) u/s 10(38) of the Act on u/s 10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. 9.1 The income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

iii) u/s 10(38) of the Act on u/s 10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. 9.1 The income

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of shares of\nprivate companies only but not to “any property” as mentioned in the\nsection 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Further, the non-applicability\nclause is also very clear in both the sections. Beside the above,\nthe explanation applicable for section 56(2)(via) of the Act is only\nrelated to “fair market value” as described

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

iii) deposit in any account with a scheduled bank or a co deposit in any account with a scheduled bank or a co operative deposit in any account with a scheduled bank or a co society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a society engaged

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

10,875/-. The interest payable on the borrowings utilized for the investment in Greatship (India) Ltd. of Rs. 16,57,59,189/-, has been excluded when computing the indirect interest expenditure disallowed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii), as such interest expenditure has already been considered as a direct expenditure under Rule 8D(2

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

iii) of the Rules to the extent reduced by the CIT(A). Ground No. 3 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(i) & 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, respectively, deleted by the CIT(A). 15.4. Both the sides agreed that our finding/adjudication in relation

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, Disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income 15. Without prejudice to the grounds raised in original appeal and above grounds, the disallowance, if any upheld under Section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the amount of the exempt income earned by the Appellant during the year; Disallowance under section

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

iii) of Rule 8D of Rs. 12,01,70,250/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed by the ld.AO at Rs.14,17,22,864/- 7. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this precise issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2008-09

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

iii) of Rule 8D of Rs. 12,01,70,250/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed by the ld.AO at Rs.14,17,22,864/- 7. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this precise issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2008-09

TATA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2(3), MUMBAI

iii)", "Section 10(2)(xv)", "Section 10(34)", "Section 2(28A)", "Section 35D", "Section 37" ], "issues": "The primary issue was the disallowance

ACIT 23-1, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

2(n) of the SEBI (Venture Capital Fund) Regulation, 1996 were brought in by Finance Act, 2007 and removed by the Finance Act, 2012. While removing the sectoral restrictions, no provision/clause was incorporated in Section 10(23FB) of the Act to restrict the benefit of Section 10(23FB) to only investments made after 01/04/2013 [i.e., the date on which

ACIT-231, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

2(n) of the SEBI (Venture Capital Fund) Regulation, 1996 were brought in by Finance Act, 2007 and removed by the Finance Act, 2012. While removing the sectoral restrictions, no provision/clause was incorporated in Section 10(23FB) of the Act to restrict the benefit of Section 10(23FB) to only investments made after 01/04/2013 [i.e., the date on which

ASIA INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed partly

10,99,16,196) was accordingly disallowed on a proportionate basis\nin the ratio of average investments to average total assets, which\nworked out to ₹1,16,79,947/-.\n\n5.5 Further, applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the Assessing\nOfficer computed disallowance at 0.5% of the average value of\ninvestments towards administrative expenses, which amounted

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowed. Identical is the situation\nin the present appeal. When there is no restriction imposed under\nsection 10(23FB) of the Act with regard to availing of exemption\nunder section 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act, the assessee's claim\ncannot be denied.\nPage No. 21\nITA NO.91/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)\nAditya Birla Private Equity Trust