MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned

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

Bench: us. 2.

section 56 or any other provisions of the Act. The assessee incurred expenses on ITA Nos. 3195-3196, 3911-3913 & 4579/Mum/2019 & ITA Nos. 266 & 806/Mum/2020 AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 various personnel/ employee in the project for supervision and monitoring the various project and marketing allocation and refineries which is certainly allowable as business expenditure

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

section 56 or any\nother provisions of the Act. The assessee incurred expenses on\n19\nITA Nos. 3195-3196, 3911-3913 & 4579/Mum/2019\n& ITA Nos. 266 & 806/Mum/2020\nAYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17\nvarious personnel/ employee in the project for supervision and\nmonitoring the various project and marketing allocation and\nrefineries which is certainly allowable as business expenditure

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs. 10,53,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable in law. The addition is therefore deleted and Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Ground No. 5 – Additional Ground: Claim of Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 78,67,620/- 117. During the appellate proceedings

ACIT , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD , MUMBAI

section 115JB of the Act as held by the Ld.\nCIT(A) in this case, it makes the provisions of law in clause (f) in Explanation 1 in\nSection 115JB of the Act.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was\nnot justified in directing

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made. The Assessing Officer made addition

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made. The Assessing Officer made addition

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

disallowed 45,127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case