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 computed under section 14A of the Act pertains to computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 and there is no express provision in clause

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 computed under section 14A of the Act pertains to computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 and there is no express provision in clause

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

section 194H of the Act. 9. Though, the assessee challenged the aforesaid disallowance before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), he also sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 10. The learned Authorised Representative submitted before us that identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO BUILDING, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 115JB of the Act. 4. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the AO in the assessment order has recorded the dissatisfaction by stating that the disallowance made by assessee is not commensurate with the quantum of exempt income earned by the assessee and therefore the contentions of the assessee in this regard are not sustainable. Accordingly

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

section 80HHC of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the profit earned by valuing finished goods is notional imaginary profit which could not be taxed. In view of the above, it is argued that appreciation in value of investments cannot be taken into account. The netting off of appreciation against the depreciation within a classification is therefore contrary

BOMBAY OXYGEN INVESTMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

section 10(34). Assessee computed suo moto disallowance of ₹17,21,138/- under section 14A as proportion of salary and administrative

TRENT LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance\nresorted to by ld. Assessing Officer by applying provisions of section\n14A r.w.r. 8D.\n4.\nBrief facts of the case are that assessee is a public limited\ncompany listed on recognised stock exchanges in India. Assessee is\nengaged in retailing of apparels, footwear, accessories, toys, games etc.\nIt operates through 'Westside' and 'Landmark' retail formats. Westside\nTrent's flagship

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

138/- paid\nto Anand & Anand P. Ltd. of Rs.1,26,50,697/- paid to Anfilco\nLtd. and interest of Rs.89,344/- Dytek India Ltd. related to\ninterest at another corporate deposits.\n\n9.21 We note that in assessment year 2011–12, the Tribunal had\nupheld a similar disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). However, the\nfactual matrix in the present

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO BUILDING, MUMBAI

section 115JB of the Act.\n4.\nThe ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the AO in the assessment order\nhas recorded the dissatisfaction by stating that the disallowance made by assessee is\nnot commensurate with the quantum of exempt income earned by the assessee and\ntherefore the contentions of the assessee in this regard are not sustainable.\nAccordingly

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

section 40(a) (i)/ (ia) of the Act.\n2. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow the expenses\nin connection with QIP.\nGROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE ISSUE OF\nALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE PAID ON HTM SECURITIES:\n1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon' ble\nCIT

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowance of direct expenses as provided under Rule 8D(2)(i) and the interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The dispute is with regard to administrative expenses only as prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii). We have noted that the assessee has claimed investment in its group companies for strategic purpose on which no other expenses or administrative expenses

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Though it has been submitted by the assessee that the payment for purchase of software is for acquiring of copyrighted article and not for transfer of any right in the copyright and payment cannot be construed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

disallowance can be made u/s 37 of the Act. made u/s 37 of the Act.” 7.2 Before us, the Ld. Counsel Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee submitted that firstly section 40A(2)(b) of the Act is not section 40A(2)(b) of the Act is not applicable applicable in the case

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY (INDIA)PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) on account of delay in deposit of employee 6 Emerson Electric Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. contribution of ESIC and Provident fund (PF) and addition under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 195 of Rs. 4.24 crore. All such additions were made in draft assessment order dated 28.09.2021. Copy of draft assessment order 28.09.2021 was served

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

section 40(a) (i)/ (ia) of the Act.\n2. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow the expenses\nin connection with QIP.\nGROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE ISSUE OF\nALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE PAID ON HTM SECURITIES:\n1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon' ble\nCIT

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company