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

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14 A read with rule 8D of ₹ 352,517,338/–. Out of this disallowances the offer disallowance of the assessee in the computation of total income of ₹ 8,155

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14 A read with rule 8D of ₹ 352,517,338/–. Out of this disallowances the offer disallowance of the assessee in the computation of total income of ₹ 8,155

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14 A read with rule 8D of ₹ 352,517,338/–. Out of this disallowances the offer disallowance of the assessee in the computation of total income of ₹ 8,155

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] &

section 14 A of ₹ 3,814,037,203/–. 25) While making such disallowance the learned assessing officer further considered the decisions of coordinate bench in Deputy Commissioner of income tax versus SG investment and industries Ltd [(2004) 89 ITD 44 (KOL)], honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus United Gen trust private limited [(200 ITR 488)], Distributors(Baroda) private

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 of both direct and indirect expenditure in relation to the exempt income. Also, section 115JB (1)(f) uses the same expression. 3.2 (a) There is fundamental difference between the “Receipt” and “Income”. The concept of matching principle as explained and found to be central spine of accounting standard of recording various transactions for computation of income is based

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

Disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of `Other Income' (g) Ground No. 7 to 7.2: General grounds on Transfer Pricing Adjustment (h) Ground No. 7.3 to 7.8: Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 22,01,14,350/- pertaining to Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion expenditure (i) Ground No. 7.9 to 7.10: Transfer Pricing Adjustment

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner’s assessment can be rectified [section 155

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner’s assessment can be rectified [section 155

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A by invoking the provisions of rule 8D of the act could also be imputed under the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the act has already been decided by special bench in case of Vireet Investments P Ltd 82 taxmann.com 415. Same is now also covered

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A by invoking the provisions of rule 8D of the act could also be imputed under the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the act has already been decided by special bench in case of Vireet Investments P Ltd 82 taxmann.com 415. Same is now also covered

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A by invoking the provisions of rule 8D of the act could also be imputed under the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the act has already been decided by special bench in case of Vireet Investments P Ltd 82 taxmann.com 415. Same is now also covered

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A by invoking the provisions of rule 8D of the act could also be imputed under the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the act has already been decided by special bench in case of Vireet Investments P Ltd 82 taxmann.com 415. Same is now also covered

DCIT CENT. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. RARE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

disallow the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. However, the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Sugar and in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation held that where there is one indivisible business giving rise to taxable income as well as exempt income, the entire expenditure incurred in relation to that business would have to be allowed even if a part

DCIT CENT. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. RARE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

disallow the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. However, the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Sugar and in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation held that where there is one indivisible business giving rise to taxable income as well as exempt income, the entire expenditure incurred in relation to that business would have to be allowed even if a part

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - Rs. 1,76,84,433/- (ii) Disallowance of delayed payment of PF/ESI - Rs. 80,41,155

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

155 ITR 120. Dividend income has always been included under the head ‘income from other sources’ u/s.56(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the net dividend income as contemplated u/s.80M has to be computed by allowing deduction in respect of expenditure as permissible u/s.57(iii). This is further supported by provisions of section 80AB which provides that deductions to be made

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

155 ITR 120. Dividend income has always been included under the head ‘income from other sources’ u/s.56(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the net dividend income as contemplated u/s.80M has to be computed by allowing deduction in respect of expenditure as permissible u/s.57(iii). This is further supported by provisions of section 80AB which provides that deductions to be made

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

155 ITR 120. Dividend income has always been included under the head ‘income from other sources’ u/s.56(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the net dividend income as contemplated u/s.80M has to be computed by allowing deduction in respect of expenditure as permissible u/s.57(iii). This is further supported by provisions of section 80AB which provides that deductions to be made

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

155 ITR 120. Dividend income has always been included under the head ‘income from other sources’ u/s.56(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the net dividend income as contemplated u/s.80M has to be computed by allowing deduction in respect of expenditure as permissible u/s.57(iii). This is further supported by provisions of section 80AB which provides that deductions to be made