PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowing assessee’s claim the Department is required to bring on record cogent material to establish that the borrowed funds were utilised in setting– up the Baddi unit and further the R&D expenditure incurred was related to manufacturing activity carried out in Baddi unit. There is no clarity on the fact whether the assessee has maintained unit–wise accounts

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. GREATSHIP(INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of INR 9,93,001/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. 9. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. Ground No.1 to 5 10. Ground No. 1 to 5 raised

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowance of direct expenses as provided under Rule 8D(2)(i) and the interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The dispute is with regard to administrative expenses only as prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii). We have noted that the assessee has claimed investment in its group companies for strategic purpose on which no other expenses or administrative expenses

M/S GREATSHIP (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

disallowance of INR 10,67,893/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 8. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present appeal raising 13 grounds of appeals. Ground No. 1 to 9 9. Ground No. 1 to 9 are directed against determination of ALP of the financial guarantee commissioner given by the Appellant

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

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

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) would not arise Held, yes\n[Para 10] [In favour of assessee]\nIN THE\nITAT\nMUMBAI\nBENCH\n'B'\nNeo\nSports\nBroadcast (P.)\nLtd.\nIT APPEAL NOS.\n4010 & 4011\n(MUM.) OF 2014\n[ASSESSMENT\nYEARS 2010-11\nAND 2011-12]\nSection 194A, read with section 263, of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction

COLE PARMER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly grounds are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 957/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act is not warranted in the hands of the Appellant for payments made to Thermo India. As per the provisions of Section 191

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

191 of the Act, it is clear that tax is deductible at source only in respect of income. With respect to the above, relevant extracts of the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of - Hyderabad Industries Ltd Vs ITO [1991] 188 ITR 749 (Karn) is hereby reproduced : M/s. K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED It was held

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

191 of the Act, it is clear that tax is deductible at source only in respect of income. With respect to the above, relevant extracts of the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of - Hyderabad Industries Ltd Vs ITO [1991] 188 ITR 749 (Karn) is hereby reproduced : M/s. K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED It was held

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 80IC Unit I Rs.6,25,43,786/- Unit II Rs,21,85,37,371/- Rs. 2,45,454/- (5) Addition on account of difference in AIR 4. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order against which the assessee raised objections before the DRP. The DRP gave marginal relief to the assessee with respect of depreciation claimed on marketing

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 80IC Unit I Rs.6,25,43,786/- Unit II Rs,21,85,37,371/- Rs. 2,45,454/- (5) Addition on account of difference in AIR 4. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order against which the assessee raised objections before the DRP. The DRP gave marginal relief to the assessee with respect of depreciation claimed on marketing

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 14A and rule 8D(1) has notbeen complied with. Once that is so, he cannot proceed to enhancethe disallowance u/s 14A over and above offered by the assessee. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the CIT(A) is deleted on this preliminary ground and thus, around no. 2 raised by the assessee

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) would not arise Held, yes\n[Para 10] [In favour of assessee]\n\nIN THE ITAT | Section 194A, read with section 263, of\nMUMBAI\n'B'\nBENCH | the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of\nNeo\nSports | tax at source - Interest other than\nBroadcast (P.) | interest on securities (Reimbursement of\nLtd.\ncommission to holding company

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

disallowance could be made. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the amount of Rs.88,290/- from the book profit.” Thus, he submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. was duly considered by Tribunal before taking contrary view in the matter. But Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not accept

M/S GREATSHIP (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RANGE 5 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

disallowance of INR 28,79,506/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 8. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present appeal raising 16 grounds of appeals. Ground No.1 & 2 The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us submitted made a statement under instruction that he would not be pressing Ground