JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

135 of the Companies Act, 2013. The legislative intent of of the Companies Act, 2013. The legislative intent of of the Companies Act, 2013. The legislative intent of introduction of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act, introduction of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act, introduction of Explanation 2 to Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance under section 14A 15 ITA 2382 & 2383/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd and Ground no.6 to 8 regarding the TP adjustment raised by the revenue are dismissed. 23. Ground No. 3 and 4 are regarding the depreciation on sample flat. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on building by applying the rate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance under section 14A 15 ITA 2382 & 2383/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd and Ground no.6 to 8 regarding the TP adjustment raised by the revenue are dismissed. 23. Ground No. 3 and 4 are regarding the depreciation on sample flat. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on building by applying the rate

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance on merits. The learned CIT(A), however, upheld the reopening, invoking The learned CIT(A), however, upheld the reopening, invoking The learned CIT(A), however, upheld the reopening, invoking Explanation 1 to section 148 and opining that audit objections Explanation 1 to section 148 and opining that audit objections Explanation 1 to section 148 and opining that audit objections

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Disallowance of deduction under section 80G\nThe Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had incurred\nCorporate Social Responsibility expenditure amounting to Rs.\n21,06,00,000/- and claimed deduction under section 80G of Rs.\n10,53,00,000/- in respect of donations made to Reliance\nFoundation.\nAccording to the Assessing Officer, Corporate Social\nResponsibility expenditure incurred under section 135

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)

135, taxmann.com 304 (Madras) (2022) where disallowance computed by assessee was not in accordance with methodology prescribed under rule 8D, no interference was called for. Further, in PCIT vs, BSE Limited 129, taxmann.com 87 (SC) (2021),it was held that prior to working out disallowance under section

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

disallowed u/s.37(1) of the\nAct and eligible amount was claimed u/s 80G of the Act. All the\ndonation receipts in respect of the total claim made u/s 80G were\nproduced before the lower authorities. Reliance is placed on various\njudicial precedents wherein it is held that CSR spend, even though made\nunder a legal obligation under section 135

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 deduction under section 80G The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had incurred Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure amounting to Rs. 21,06,00,000/- and claimed deduction under section 80G of Rs. 10,53,00,000/- in respect of donations made to Reliance Foundation. According to the Assessing Officer, Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure incurred under section 135

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 14 A is made by the learned assessing officer of ₹ 3,814,037,203/–, we do not find that the learned assessing officer has invoked the provisions of these rules. The learned assessing officer has made the disallowance holding that assessee has earned total tax free domestic interest income of ₹ 5,135

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(i) since the own funds of the Assessee were only INR 1355,19,82,325/- [as opposed to INR 12806,13,99,023/- computed by the CIT(A)] and therefore, the CIT(A) erred in arriving at the conclusion that the Assessee had sufficient interest free own funds to make

DISH TV INDIA LTD vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumardish Tv India Ltd. Fc–19, Firm City, Sector–16A ……………. Appellant Noida 400 063 Pan – Aaaca5478M V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–11(1), Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–16(1), Mumbai V/S Dish Tv India Ltd. 135, Continental Building Dr. A.B. Road, Worli ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaaca5478M

135, Continental Building Dr. A.B. Road, Worli ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 018 PAN – AAACA5478M Assessee by : Shri Niraj Seth a/w Shri Jay Bhansali Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh Date of Hearing – 16.04.2018 Date of Order – 08.06.2018 2 Dish TV India Ltd. O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid cross appeals arise out of order dated 8th February

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed in terms of the Explanation to section 37 cannot\nbe allowed by way of deduction in terms of section 80G of the Act. The AO,\nvide order passed under section143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the\nsubmission of the assessee and held that the provision of section 135