PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

disallowance under section 40 A (3) of the act with respect to the purchases of the material. The assessee’s claim is that there is no cash payment made by the assessee which is in violation of the provisions of section 40 A (3) of the act and the learned departmental representative has categorically relied upon the orders

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses applying provision of section 40(a)(ia). Assessment Years: 2006-2007 3.2. The CIT (A) ought to have deleted

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

3.\n3.1.\nDisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia)\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nCIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the\nliability of Rs.1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses\napplying provision of section 40(a)(ia).\n3.2.\nThe CIT (A) ought to have deleted the disallowance and held\nthat

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

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

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

disallowance vide Order, dated 20/03/2024. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before this Tribunal by way of Ground No.3 to 6 raised in the present appeal. 60. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have perused the material on record. 61. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

disallowance vide Order, dated 20/03/2024. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before this Tribunal by way of Ground No.3 to 6 raised in the present appeal. 60. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have perused the material on record. 61. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

disallowance vide Order, dated 20/03/2024. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before this Tribunal by way of Ground No.3 to 6 raised in the present appeal. 60. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have perused the material on record. 61. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

disallowance vide Order, dated 20/03/2024. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before this Tribunal by way of Ground No.3 to 6 raised in the present appeal. 60. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have perused the material on record. 61. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of In ground No. 3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of In ground No. 3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of In ground No. 3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of In ground No. 3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

disallowed on the pretext that they are not supported by bills and vouchers. The case of the appellant as such that the complete books of account are not available and therefore, the assessments are to be completed on the basis of the material found and seized during the course of search and survey is justified. Accordingly

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

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

3) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).\n2.1. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA\nNo. 2273/Mum/2023:\n“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nwhether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the\ndisallowance of Rs.11,21,42,029/- under Section

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

Bench: us. 2.

131/- of provision disallowed and added to income. CIT(A) recorded the fact that AO has not discussed Section 43B(f) thus erred in interpreting and justify such disallowance u/s 438(b) as if interpreted and justified by AO in assessment order, even though no such reason is recorded in assessment order by AO nor applied such section

PRAKASH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act at the rate of 10% as against the rate of 20% adopted by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issue Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2011-12 in appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order, dated 16/05/2012, passed in ITA No. 7213/Mum/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08, the Tribunal remanded

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-:\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company