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

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 ()

144 r.w.r. 80 of the Act under the provisions of section 115/8 [Rs. 1.01.07,904/ 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of t 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and he case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the learned Asses erred in upholding the action

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 ()

144 r.w.r. 80 of the Act under the provisions of section 115/8 [Rs. 1.01.07,904/ 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of t 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and he case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the learned Asses erred in upholding the action

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

disallowance made of Rs.17,99,90,677/- for AY 2009-10 by invoking Section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) is also not challenged by the assessee. It was submitted that legal contention which is raised by the assessee is that when the books of accounts were rejected by the AO u/s. 145(3) , then Section 40A(3)/40A(3) cannot

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

disallowance made of Rs.17,99,90,677/- for AY 2009-10 by invoking Section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) is also not challenged by the assessee. It was submitted that legal contention which is raised by the assessee is that when the books of accounts were rejected by the AO u/s. 145(3) , then Section 40A(3)/40A(3) cannot

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).

144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced

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 16,13,709 A2 Hire charges paid 52,52,210 A3 Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) 3

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 u/s.143(2) Assessment u/s.153C of Addition completed proceedings Ground No.2 can be made only on the basis of incriminating material Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without DIN Ground

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 u/s.143(2) Assessment u/s.153C of Addition completed proceedings Ground No.2 can be made only on the basis of incriminating material Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without DIN Ground

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 u/s.143(2) Assessment u/s.153C of Addition completed proceedings Ground No.2 can be made only on the basis of incriminating material Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without DIN Ground

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 u/s.143(2) Assessment u/s.153C of Addition completed proceedings Ground No.2 can be made only on the basis of incriminating material Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without DIN Ground

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 u/s.143(2) Assessment u/s.153C of Addition completed proceedings Ground No.2 can be made only on the basis of incriminating material Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without DIN Ground

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

3,901.87 6,921.77 36.05% 63.95% 362.34 642.79 362.34 562.44 11,278.23 10,369.03 10,823.63 1,005.13 924.78 I. 17. On perusal of the aforesaid table it is observed that the interest expenditure to be taken into consideration for computing disallowance under section 144

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

144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance under section 144 is Rs 924.78 crore. I. 18. We would now like to proceed with the calculation of investments yielding tax free income. It may be noted that the average investments yielding tax free income for the captioned AY amounts to Rs 3

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

3,901.87 | 36.05% | 362.34 | 362.34 Not exempt SLR | 7,245.38 | 6,598.15 | 6,921.77 | 63.95% | 642.79 | 562.44 Total | 11,278.23 | 10,369.03 | 10,823.63 | | 1,005.13 | 924.78 I. 17. On perusal of the aforesaid table it is observed that the interest expenditure to be taken into consideration for computing disallowance under section 144

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance under section 144 is Rs 924.78 crore. I. 18. We would now like to proceed with the calculation of investments yielding tax free income. It may be noted that the average investments yielding tax free income for the captioned AY amounts to Rs 3

M/S EDELWISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Edelweiss Rural & Acit Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Cgo Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakcs 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement ___/03/2023 Order

144 in the context of the scheme of the Act and, if so read, it is clear that it scheme of the Act and, if so read, it is clear that it scheme of the Act and, if so read, it is clear that it disallows certain expenditure incurred to earn exempt disallows certain expenditure incurred to earn exempt disallows