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

1) of the Act, inter-alia, on the basis of adjustment proposed by the TPO. 6. The DRP, vide its directions dated 30-9-2019, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act, inter-alia, upheld the order passed by the TPO following its directions issued in preceding assessment years and accordingly rejected the objections filed by the assessee. Being

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. However in the body of the order of the AO as well of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), discussion has been made regarding the non-admissibility of claim of deduction of the interest expenditure even u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance has also been placed

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of investments from which exempt income was actually earned

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed Rs.471,05,05,075/-.\n5. 1. The assessee agitated the matter before ld. CIT(A) and vehemently\ncontended that the assessee had written off bad debts of Rs.923.67 Crore\nafter reducing the opening credit balance in the provision for bad and\ndoubtful debts account u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs.452.61 Crores and claimed\nthe balance amount of Rs.471.06 Crores

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed certain expenses amounting to 5 ITA 2791, 2357 & 2355/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Aptivaa Middle Ease FZE ₹5,31,09,042/- as bogus and was held to be taxable in India at 40%. It was also held by the Ld.AR that assessee is a non- resident and has a fixed place of business in India. Accordingly

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed certain expenses amounting to 5 ITA 2791, 2357 & 2355/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Aptivaa Middle Ease FZE ₹5,31,09,042/- as bogus and was held to be taxable in India at 40%. It was also held by the Ld.AR that assessee is a non- resident and has a fixed place of business in India. Accordingly

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed certain expenses amounting to 5 ITA 2791, 2357 & 2355/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Aptivaa Middle Ease FZE ₹5,31,09,042/- as bogus and was held to be taxable in India at 40%. It was also held by the Ld.AR that assessee is a non- resident and has a fixed place of business in India. Accordingly

LEELABEN KANTILAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

151 of I.T. Act, 1961.” 16. From the perusal of the aforesaid reasons, it is evident that information was received from the office of DGIT (investigation), Mumbai in respect of Leelaben Kantilal Parekh ITA no.2926/Mum./2023 various assessees who have taken bogus/hawala/accommodation entries from certain parties to inflate the purchases, resulting in reduction of taxable profit. From the perusal

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2012-13)\n10. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its e-return of income\ndeclaring total income at Rs. 1299, 92, 77,220/- on 13.04.2017 in response to the\nnotice issued

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowed under Section 37(1) 2,05,35,800 TP Adjustment 36,38,25,151 Total Disallowances 659,75,09,200 Taxable

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses U/s 37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses U/s 37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses U/s 37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses U/s 37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses U/s 37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses U/s 37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation