DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

15), the nature of activity of the assessee and the receipts of the assessee being more than Rs 25 lakhs, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of section 11. He further noted that in the light of the provisions of Section 13(8), even if the assessee was to be granted registration under section 12AA, he will

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

section 2(15) of the Act and rejected the plea of the assessee of of the assessee of application of rule of consistency. rule of consistency. The Ld. CIT(A) finally upheld the The Ld. CIT(A) finally upheld the action of the Assessing Officer for: action of the Assessing Officer for: (i) disallowance

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw in the memorandum and articles of association which, according to the revenue, disentitled the assessee for claim under section

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

15), the nature of activity of the assessee and the receipts of the assessee being more than Rs 25 lakhs, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of section 11. He further noted that in the light of the provisions of Section 13(8), even if the assessee was to be granted registration under section 12AA, he will

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 2(15) of the Act is attracted and, the Assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. With regard to ground Nos. 2 and 3 on the issue, the Assessee 19. acting as an agent of the Government of Maharashtra and lease premium not the income of the Assessee, Ld DR submitted as under

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 2(15) of the Act is attracted and, the Assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. With regard to ground Nos. 2 and 3 on the issue, the Assessee 19. acting as an agent of the Government of Maharashtra and lease premium not the income of the Assessee, Ld DR submitted as under

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 2(15) of the Act is attracted and, the Assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. With regard to ground Nos. 2 and 3 on the issue, the Assessee 19. acting as an agent of the Government of Maharashtra and lease premium not the income of the Assessee, Ld DR submitted as under

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 2(15) of the Act is attracted and, the Assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. With regard to ground Nos. 2 and 3 on the issue, the Assessee 19. acting as an agent of the Government of Maharashtra and lease premium not the income of the Assessee, Ld DR submitted as under

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 2(15) of the Act is attracted and, the Assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. With regard to ground Nos. 2 and 3 on the issue, the Assessee 19. acting as an agent of the Government of Maharashtra and lease premium not the income of the Assessee, Ld DR submitted as under

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act amounting to INR 15,34,55,236 (Page

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

section 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

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowing the expenditure\non Scientific Research and Development u/s 35(2AB) totaling to Rs.\n4,24,13,526/- for all the three units, on the basis of the auditor's\ncertificate which stated that these expenses are beyond the\nguidelines laid down by DSIR. These guidelines are in contradiction\nwith the provisions of section

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

Disallowance under section 14A - Ground No. 1 to 15 (ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18 (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

Disallowance under section 14A - Ground No. 1 to 15 (ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18 (iii) Disallowance

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

Disallowance under section 14A - Ground No. 1 to 15 (ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18 (iii) Disallowance

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act having already been knocked off by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, it cannot be revived again in the search assessment proceeding. 15

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance