BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.03.2013 3 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited for AY 2009-10, dated 07.09.2015 for AY 2011-12, dated 04.09.2015 for AY 2010- 11. AY 2009-10 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Fans, Telecommunication, Transmission Line Towers, Hot Dip Galvanizing

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

144 read with Rule 8D, in view of the fact that it would lead to additional disallowance. 1.27 Considering the above it is submitted that the method adopted by the Corporation is a reasonable one, and accordingly should be accepted by the Assessing officer in computing the disallowance under section

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

144 read with Rule 8D, in view of the fact that it would lead to additional disallowance. 1.27 Considering the above it is submitted that the method adopted by the Corporation is a reasonable one, and accordingly should be accepted by the Assessing officer in computing the disallowance under section

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

144 read with Rule 8D, in view of the fact that it would lead to additional disallowance. 1.27 Considering the above it is submitted that the method adopted by the Corporation is a reasonable one, and accordingly should be accepted by the Assessing officer in computing the disallowance under section

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

144 read with Rule 8D, in view of the fact that it would lead to additional disallowance. 1.27 Considering the above it is submitted that the method adopted by the Corporation is a reasonable one, and accordingly should be accepted by the Assessing officer in computing the disallowance under section

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Disallowance u/s 144 r.w.r. 80 of the Act under the provisions of section 115/8 [Rs. 1.01.07,904/-] Disallowance u/s 144

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Disallowance u/s 144 r.w.r. 80 of the Act under the provisions of section 115/8 [Rs. 1.01.07,904/-] Disallowance u/s 144

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

144 read with Section 153A of the Act, assessed the income of the Assessee at INR 93,92,968/- after making following additions/disallowances: SNo. Particulars Amount (INR) A Payments - Additions/Disallowances A1 Expenses disallowed

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed by the AO should be\nallowed as a deduction. Through additional ground the assessee is making an\nadditional claim of Rs.3,36,85,160/- towards ESOP expenditure being the\ndifference between the value of shares using Fair Value method of Rs.4,95,88,603\nand the intrinsic value of Rs.1,59,03,443 debited in the books of account

LATE SHRI MOHAN RAJ CHHAJED (THROUGH LEGAL JEOR SHANTILAL CHHAJED),MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Through Legal Heir Shantilal Pali Rajasthan-306-401. Chhajed), Vs. 601, Shilpa Apartments, C.D. Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaipc 6614 N Appellant Respondent

disallowed interest amounting to ₹1,68,262/- out of the interest expenditure of out of the interest expenditure of ₹ ₹5,99,818/- for interest-free advances to relatives. In this manner free advances to relatives. In this manner free advances to relatives. In this manner, the Assessing Officer after allowing after allowing deduction under Chapter VI-A, A, assessed total

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] &

disallowance under section 14 A to the extent of Rs. 311,976,518/– as under: – 0.5% of average investments (including subsidiaries) Rs. 30,84,14,003 and 74/– Interest expenditure in foreign currency loans Rs. 3,562,144

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed by the AO should be\nallowed as a deduction. Through additional ground the assessee is making an\nadditional claim of Rs.3,36,85,160/- towards ESOP expenditure being the\ndifference between the value of shares using Fair Value method of Rs.4,95,88,603\nand the intrinsic value of Rs.1,59,03,443 debited in the books of account

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

144 read with Rule 8D, in \nview of the fact that it would lead to additional disallowance. \n1.27 Considering the above it is submitted that the method adopted by the \nCorporation is a reasonable one, and accordingly should be accepted by \nthe Assessing officer in computing the disallowance under section

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 the act. 034. Ground number 3 is with respect to the foreign exchange gain incurred on purchase of material ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure and the learned assessing officer is of the view that it should be included in the cost

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 the act. 034. Ground number 3 is with respect to the foreign exchange gain incurred on purchase of material ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure and the learned assessing officer is of the view that it should be included in the cost

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

Section 37 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. Accordingly, Ground No. iv. & v. raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Ground No. vi. of appeal by Revenue 15. Ground No. vi. raised by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of INR 1,47,46,791/- made by the Assessing Officer

HDFC BANK LIMITED( AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

144 read with Rule 8D, in\nview of the fact that it would lead to additional disallowance.\n1.27 Considering the above it is submitted that the method adopted by the\nCorporation is a reasonable one, and accordingly should be accepted by\nthe Assessing officer in computing the disallowance under section

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFAC , DELHI

144 read with Rule 8D, in \nview of the fact that it would lead to additional disallowance. \n1.27 Considering the above it is submitted that the method adopted by the \nCorporation is a reasonable one, and accordingly should be accepted by \nthe Assessing officer in computing the disallowance under section