GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed under Section 43B. 42. The operative para of the said decision is as under: 6. We have carefully examined the scope and ambit of Section 43B of the Act. In our view, this section has two parts. The first part is that whether the interest paid in addition will at all be deductible under this section

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed under Section 43B. 42. The operative para of the said decision is as under: 6. We have carefully examined the scope and ambit of Section 43B of the Act. In our view, this section has two parts. The first part is that whether the interest paid in addition will at all be deductible under this section

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY (INDIA)PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Disallowance as per section 40(a)(i) is warranted in cases where assessee fails to deduct tax under Chapter XVII-B of the Act. However, in the present case, the assessee duly deducted tax at source under Chapter XVII-B as per section 192

KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act made the disallowance of Rs. 54,33,62,192, under section 14A r/w Rule

KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 2(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act made the disallowance of Rs. 54,33,62,192, under section 14A r/w Rule

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act made the disallowance of Rs. 54,33,62,192, under section 14A r/w Rule

KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act made the disallowance of Rs. 54,33,62,192, under section 14A r/w Rule

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)

Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii), the assessee (firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12 per cent per se. This is because section

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)

Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii), the assessee (firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12 per cent per se. This is because section

VINATI OPRGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for the statistical purpose and that of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

192 Dr. AB Road, Mumbai -400 001 PAN:AAACV 6538 K ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee by "ी अनुज "कशदवाला : Shri Anuj Kishadwala "ी ट" आर पूते Shri T R Poote - Revenue by : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 22-09-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 22-09-2016 आदेश ORDER "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowed an amount of Rs.2,24,49,087/- considering it to be capital in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) by following various judicial precedents as well as the DRP directions for A.Y. 2007-08 held that the expenses not covered under section 35 of the Act, for weighted deduction, but would be allowable under section 37 of the Act, unless

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

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

192/-. Considering the disallowance already offered by the appellant, the net disallowance of Rs. 98,57,399/- was made to the returned income u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. The appellant has contended that no further disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is required in the facts of its case. Further, as an alternate argument, the appellant has stated

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

192/-. Considering the disallowance already offered by the appellant, the net disallowance of Rs. 98,57,399/- was made to the returned income u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. The appellant has contended that no further disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is required in the facts of its case. Further, as an alternate argument, the appellant has stated

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINAMRA UNIVERSAL TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

192 ITR 214, CIT vs. Abdulgafur 199 ITR 827 and CIT vs. Vidhyagauri 238 ITR 91, levied penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evade so, at Rs. 1,90,84,194/-. 3.3 During the appellate proceedings, appellant have submitted as under: Applicability of provisions of section 94(7) was accepted by the Appellant during the course of assessment

FINE ESTATES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-4,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowing the additional amount of Rs.30,82,192/- under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(i) on account of interest

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA SKY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3214/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3215/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Tata Sky Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of Unit 301, To 305, 3 Rd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Windsor, Off C.S.T. Road, [Now Assistant Vs. Kalina, Santacruz (East), Commissioner Of Income – Mumbai-400 098 Tax, Range 16(1)] Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagcs9294M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3971/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3972/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Income Tax 7(3) 34D Floor, C-1, Wadia 6Th Room No. 615, Floor, International Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Bombay Dyeing), Mumbai-400 020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbi-400 025 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Senior Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29-07-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-09-2020

disallowance of discount given to the customers under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unwarranted. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s decision in ITA No. 6923 to 6926/Mum/2012 in assessee’s own case for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 order dated 12.10.2018, wherein, while adjudicating

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA SKY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3214/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3215/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Tata Sky Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of Unit 301, To 305, 3 Rd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Windsor, Off C.S.T. Road, [Now Assistant Vs. Kalina, Santacruz (East), Commissioner Of Income – Mumbai-400 098 Tax, Range 16(1)] Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagcs9294M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3971/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3972/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Income Tax 7(3) 34D Floor, C-1, Wadia 6Th Room No. 615, Floor, International Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Bombay Dyeing), Mumbai-400 020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbi-400 025 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Senior Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29-07-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-09-2020

disallowance of discount given to the customers under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unwarranted. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s decision in ITA No. 6923 to 6926/Mum/2012 in assessee’s own case for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 order dated 12.10.2018, wherein, while adjudicating

TATA SKY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3214/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3215/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Tata Sky Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of Unit 301, To 305, 3 Rd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Windsor, Off C.S.T. Road, [Now Assistant Vs. Kalina, Santacruz (East), Commissioner Of Income – Mumbai-400 098 Tax, Range 16(1)] Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagcs9294M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3971/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3972/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Income Tax 7(3) 34D Floor, C-1, Wadia 6Th Room No. 615, Floor, International Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Bombay Dyeing), Mumbai-400 020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbi-400 025 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Senior Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29-07-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-09-2020

disallowance of discount given to the customers under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unwarranted. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s decision in ITA No. 6923 to 6926/Mum/2012 in assessee’s own case for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 order dated 12.10.2018, wherein, while adjudicating