DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

145,25,78,710/-, which includes the interest expenditure of the tonnage tax business of the assessee of Rs.90,80,28,977/- for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), without appreciating the fact that such interest expenditure was directly attributable to the tonnage tax activities and was therefore, already excluded from the total income pursuant to which such

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

145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance

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

145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance

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

145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

145,25,78,710/-, which\nincludes the interest expenditure of the tonnage tax business of\nthe assessee of Rs.90,80,28,977/- for computing the\ndisallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), without appreciating the fact\nthat such interest expenditure was directly attributable to the\ntonnage tax activities and was therefore, already excluded from\nthe total income pursuant to which such

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

145,25,78,710/-, which\nincludes the interest expenditure of the tonnage tax business of\nthe assessee of Rs.90,80,28,977/- for computing the\ndisallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), without appreciating the fact\nthat such interest expenditure was directly attributable to the\ntonnage tax activities and was therefore, already excluded from\nthe total income pursuant to which such

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year ssessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

145(2) of the It Act. The Assessing Officer found that the appellan Act. The Assessing Officer found that the appellant has not offered the t has not offered the opening balance of FTCR for computing total income resulting in under opening balance of FTCR for computing total income resulting in under opening balance of FTCR for computing total income

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. 3. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in disallowing the deduction of provision for guarantee claims of Rs. 3,47,04,32,777/- made on the basis of actuarial valuation and restricting the same to the actual payments

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)

145 taxmann.com 219 held when ad-hoc disallowance under section 14A - offered by assessee was rejected and disallowance was computed as per Rule 8D, no substantial question of law arises. Similarly, reliance is placed on decision in the case of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd versus ACIT 135, taxmann.com 304 (Madras) (2022) where disallowance computed by assessee was not in accordance

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. ()

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

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. ()

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

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. ()

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

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. ()

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

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. ()

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

ITO EXEMPTION 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

145 deals having consistent method to minimise the possibility of unfair deductions or escaping chargeability under the Act?” 3. The issue arising in Grounds No.1 to 4 raised in Revenue’s appeal pertains to the deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure made under sections 13(2

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

2,71,98,549/- u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profits under section profits under section 115JB of the Act. (viii) Further in relation to the explanation to section 14A inserted vide (viii) Further in relation to the explanation to section 14A inserted vide (viii) Further in relation

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

section 14A of the Act.” 7. The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the computation of the suo motu disal computation of the suo motu disallowance and therefore after lowance and therefore after recording dissatisfaction as to the computation

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

section 14A of the Act.” 7. The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the The Assessing Officer however was not satisfied with the computation of the suo motu disal computation of the suo motu disallowance and therefore after lowance and therefore after recording dissatisfaction as to the computation