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 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

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

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)

5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 2,49,228 0.5% of Average Investments D Total 14A Disallowance 15,36,264 Thus, the AO disallowed expenses of Rs.15,36,264/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 of the Act vide assessment orders dated

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)

5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 2,49,228 0.5% of Average Investments D Total 14A Disallowance 15,36,264 Thus, the AO disallowed expenses of Rs.15,36,264/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 of the Act vide assessment orders dated

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)

5. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised by the Assessee is directed against the disallowance of discount extended to Pre-paid Distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. ITA No.6671-Mum-2017 A.Y.2013-14 5.1. During the relevant previous year, discount amounting to INR 54,85,13,184

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

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 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 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. 4.3 The assessee company's above contentions have been considered and found

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 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. 4.3 The assessee company's above contentions have been considered and found

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

TECH PACIFIC INDIA LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT OSD -II CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh (Account Member ) & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.8794, 8795 & 8797/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09) Tech Pacific India Limited Dy. Commissioner Of (Now Known As Ingram Vs. Income-Tax, Osd Ii, Micro India Ltd.) Central Range -7, Gate No. 1A, Godrej Aayakar Bhavan, Industries Complex, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikroli Mumbai – 400 020 (East) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan No. Aabct1296R (Assessee ) (Revenue)

184,505 9,618 Pvt. ltd. Pottery, Richards Town Bangalore- 560,005 Excelict Consulting B-2, Harsh Bihar, Off Dhole Patil 177,994 9,985 Road, Aundh, Pune 411007 Exelan Networking 20, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 1,426,135 80,006 Technologies 600010 Fourth Dimension New #9, Old# 5 Srirangam Avenue, 131,876 6,803 Technologies P. Ltd. 53, Pantheon

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

5,449,196 0.07% 0.07% 3,710 Office Rent – IFC 1,838,645,861 74,131,200 0.07% 0.07% 50,469 Electricity – Corp Corp 6,540,202 726,689 0.07% 0.07% 495 Office Electricity – Branch 228,832,431 9,129,022 0.07% 0.07% 6,215 Telephone 38,515,087 1,028,766 0.07% 0.07% 700 Other Other Operation Operation

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

5,449,196 0.07% 0.07% 3,710 Office Rent – IFC 1,838,645,861 74,131,200 0.07% 0.07% 50,469 Electricity – Corp Corp 6,540,202 726,689 0.07% 0.07% 495 Office Electricity – Branch 228,832,431 9,129,022 0.07% 0.07% 6,215 Telephone 38,515,087 1,028,766 0.07% 0.07% 700 Other Other Operation Operation

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

5,25,151/- 19. In A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.31,03,282/- on which it has made suo-moto disallowance of Rs.6,50,683/- under section 14A of the Act. The AO by rejecting the working of disallowance of section 14A made by the assessee proceeded to make the disallowance of Rs.59

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

5,25,151/- 19. In A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.31,03,282/- on which it has made suo-moto disallowance of Rs.6,50,683/- under section 14A of the Act. The AO by rejecting the working of disallowance of section 14A made by the assessee proceeded to make the disallowance of Rs.59

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').

184/- in the year under consideration. The AO applied the provisions u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D and assessed the expenditure to earn the exempt income in sum of Rs.1,31,04,740/-. The total income of the assessee was assessed in sum of Rs.9,41,61,890/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly

ACIT 2 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.298 से 300/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2014-15,2015-16 एवं 2017-18)

184 ITD 222 (Del-Trib) 6. Per contra,Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have categorically held that the transaction carried out by the assessee through NSCL were not delivery based. The assessee was given ample opportunity to place on record

LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-10(2) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.298 से 300/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2014-15,2015-16 एवं 2017-18)

184 ITD 222 (Del-Trib) 6. Per contra,Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have categorically held that the transaction carried out by the assessee through NSCL were not delivery based. The assessee was given ample opportunity to place on record