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

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of INR 54,85,13,184/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of disallowance of discount

SAROJ PRINT ARTS,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 21, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

disallow the interest and remuneration paid to partners as per section 184(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer having

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

184/- as per computation of total income. The assessee vide letter dated 29.12.2014 furnished working of disallowance u/s l4A (without prejudice to earlier letter dated 17.12.2014) wherein disallowance is being worked out as per provisions of section

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

184/- as per computation of total income. The assessee vide letter dated 29.12.2014 furnished working of disallowance u/s l4A (without prejudice to earlier letter dated 17.12.2014) wherein disallowance is being worked out as per provisions of section

INDIANOIL ADANI VENTURES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "INDIAN OILTANKING LIMITED"),MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed to book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AR prayed for a similar direction for the year under consideration. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We noticed that the Co-ordinate

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

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

184 Total | 11,278,23,57,695 | 10,823,63,44,275 3147,17,57,695 | 2799,45,43,010 15. 4. On the above stated facts, claim of the assessee is that amended provisions will apply only to the special reserve created from 01.04.1998 which is designated as “Special Reserve No.II Account”. Any withdrawal from “Special Reserve No.I Account

MEDITAB SPECIALITIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3395/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Meditab Specialities Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-2(2)(2) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Vs. Unit No.Sb-901 & Sb 902, M.K. Marg, Room No.545, Empire Tower Building, Mumbai-400020. Gut No.31, Cloud City Campus, Thane, Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6124A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri V. Mohan Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Disallowance Of Rs. 40,91,150 (Rs. 131,04,740 - Rs. 90,13,590) Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules - Tax Effect Rs. 13,90,580 A) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Accepting The Submission That In A Case Where There A.Y.2014-15 Is No Receipt Of Tax Free Income There Should Not Be Any Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Act. The Learned Cit (A) Ought To Have Considered The Order Of Honourable Itat Dated 18.08.2017 In Appellant'S Own Case For Ay 2012-13. B) The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 40,91,150 Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules').

disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.Nil for the A.Y.2014- 15.The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

WARTSILA INDIA PVT LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. 30. So far as question of following the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier years as contended by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee is concerned every assessment year is to be examined separately on the basis of facts

WARTSILA INDIA PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 15 (3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. 30. So far as question of following the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier years as contended by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee is concerned every assessment year is to be examined separately on the basis of facts

ACIT CIRCLE-16 (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowance under section 14A and restricting the same to Rs. 1 lac was justified in view of the material before the Tribunal. Furthermore, having considered the fact that a sum of Rs. 4,47,649/- was not conceded in the return but was adhoc acceptance during the course of assessment, the assessee could not be bound by it. The Tribunal

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

section, it is clear that it is in the nature of a disabling provision which puts a ceiling on the admissibility of a deduction. It does constitute a restriction-and a restriction which is not similarly placed for a domestic enterprise. The head office expenses, to the extent the same can be fairly allocated to the PE, are admissible

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act liable to be deleted and order of Ld. CIT (A) is sustained on this count. Resultantly, ground nos. VI, VII and VII raised by the revenue is dismissed. 9. As regards, Ground No. IX (A.Y 2010-11) - Profit from sale of flats to be treated as business income I. Facts

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made. viii. With respect to the set of brought forward losses, he directed the learned Assessing Officer to quantify the same and if found proper give credit. 010. Accordingly, he partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, both the parties are in appeal before us. 011. At the time