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 ()

10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section 14A, Similarly, with regard

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 ()

10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section 14A, Similarly, with regard

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

disallowance, the CIT(A) vide order dated 18.12.2017 following the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) v. Jasubhai Foundation: 374 ITR 315, interalia, allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the AO to grant benefit of provision of section 10(34) of the Act in respect of dividend income

DCIT- 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED , MUMBAI

46,489/- under\nsection 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this\nissue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an\nenhancement of income to an extent of Rs.\n274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by\nthe Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10.\nThe contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee\nwas not eligible

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

46,335/- as expenditure related to the exempted income. The\ndetail of such suo-motu disallowance filed by the assessee is\nreproduced as under:\nAllocation of expenses\nAmount in\nRs.\nSalary of CFO\n27,135,096\nSalary of Vice President & Group Corp.\nController\n10,291,805\nSalay of Dy. GM - Treasury\n3,414,602\nSalary of other staff in Treasury

TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

46,489/- under\nsection 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this\nissue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an\nenhancement of income to an extent of Rs.\n274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by\nthe Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10.\nThe contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee\nwas not eligible

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

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

disallowed in full under sub disallowed in full under sub-rule (i); and Asia Investments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4529, 6353/MUM/2017, 6209/MUM/2019 (ii) indirect interest expenditure indirect interest expenditure, being interest that cannot be , being interest that cannot be specifically identified or segregated as relating either to taxable specifically identified or segregated as relating either to taxable specifically identified

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, CIRCLE-8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

46,489/- under section 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this issue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an enhancement of income to an extent of Rs. 274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LIFE INUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

46,489/- under section 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this issue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an enhancement of income to an extent of Rs. 274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible

ACIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD (NOW KNOWN AS HDFC LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

46,489/- under section 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this issue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an enhancement of income to an extent of Rs. 274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

10% as administrative expenses under section 14A of the Act and hence, further disallowance towards employee cost, audit cost, communication expenses, building expenses, etc. under Section 36, Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act is not warranted. 5.3 In stating the fact that the Appellant has not provided the rationale behind arriving at such suo motu adjustment