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

section 80IA of the Act on the very same reasoning on which it was disallowed in the original assessment order. He 16

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

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

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

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

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

Section 14A could be disallowed against anticipated income. 14A could be disallowed against anticipated income 14A could be disallowed against anticipated income 11.3 Pertinently, the Division Pertinently, the Division Bench in Bench in Redington (India) )Ltd. (supra) case has repelled this precise case has repelled this precise argument. argument Era Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. 16

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

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

16 ruled that the book profit" under Section 115JB is not to be increased by the disallowance profit" under Section

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)

Disallowance under section 14A should be restricted to 1% of administrative expenditure 16. Without prejudice to the grounds raised in original

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,39,44,406/-. 24. On further appeal, aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the issue of allowance of depreciation should be 16 ITA 2382 & 2383/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd considered and decided in the first year itself. If depreciation is allowed for the first year action

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,39,44,406/-. 24. On further appeal, aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the issue of allowance of depreciation should be 16 ITA 2382 & 2383/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd considered and decided in the first year itself. If depreciation is allowed for the first year action

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

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section