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

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (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

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance

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

19. As regards the observation of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that, if at all, GIL would be eligible for deduction under section 80IA, in our view, such finding is totally misplaced. A reading of section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act would make it clear that GIL does not fulfill any of the conditions mentioned therein. Moreover, by insertion of explanation

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

disallowance to be triggered 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a In the considered view of the Court, this will be a In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section

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

19. The issue arising in ground no. 4, raised in assessee's appeal is with regard to disallowance under section

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2015, determining the total income at ₹51,19,60,630/ 29.03.2015, determining the total income at 51,19,60,630/-, after making various additions and disallowances

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

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D\n- Rs.1,19,07,328/-\n(ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP\nRs.\n7,35,861/-\n(iii) Disallowance

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 43CA of the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Secondly, the disallowance of , the disallowance of Rs. 1,19

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 43CA of the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Secondly, the disallowance of , the disallowance of Rs. 1,19

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

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. 360 ONE PRIME LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for t, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for t, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Asst. Cit Circle-6(1)(2), 360 One Prime Ltd., Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Iifl Centre, Kamala City, Senapati Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcc 3347 E Appellant Respondent

19,71,930 from sale of securities on which of securities on which Securities Transaction Tax was paid, the said income was claimed Securities Transaction Tax was paid, the said income was claimed Securities Transaction Tax was paid, the said income was claimed as exempt under section 10 of the Act while filing the return of as exempt under section

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

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D\n- Rs.1,19,07,328/-\n(ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP\nRs.\n7,35,861/-\n(iii) Disallowance

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 2,58,19,665/-. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that and amount of Rs. 2,58,19,665/- was disallowed