SURANA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

192 Dr D N Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 [PAN: AAACT2123J] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent Appearances by: Sunil Hirawat for the appellant Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma for the respondent ITA Nos.: 845,846,865, 891,892, 910,911, 914, 915, 993,994,1003, 1063,1076,1122, 1150/Mum/2022 Assessment Years

MASTER POLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

192 Dr D N Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 [PAN: AAACT2123J] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent Appearances by: Sunil Hirawat for the appellant Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma for the respondent ITA Nos.: 845,846,865, 891,892, 910,911, 914, 915, 993,994,1003, 1063,1076,1122, 1150/Mum/2022 Assessment Years

T K STEEL ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, , BANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

192 Dr D N Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 [PAN: AAACT2123J] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent Appearances by: Sunil Hirawat for the appellant Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma for the respondent ITA Nos.: 845,846,865, 891,892, 910,911, 914, 915, 993,994,1003, 1063,1076,1122, 1150/Mum/2022 Assessment Years

NILESH V. METHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 32(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

192 Dr D N Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 [PAN: AAACT2123J] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent Appearances by: Sunil Hirawat for the appellant Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma for the respondent ITA Nos.: 845,846,865, 891,892, 910,911, 914, 915, 993,994,1003, 1063,1076,1122, 1150/Mum/2022 Assessment Years

STG REFRACTORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI-400042 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, KARNATAKA-560500

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

192 Dr D N Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 [PAN: AAACT2123J] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent Appearances by: Sunil Hirawat for the appellant Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma for the respondent ITA Nos.: 845,846,865, 891,892, 910,911, 914, 915, 993,994,1003, 1063,1076,1122, 1150/Mum/2022 Assessment Years

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to\n- Rs.84,46,95,341/-\nRs.60,79,783/-\n- Rs.5,50,86,192

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to\n- Rs.84,46,95,341/-\nRs.60,79,783/-\n- Rs.5,50,86,192

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to\n\n- Rs.84,46,95,341/-\n- Rs.60,79,783/-\n- Rs.5,50,86,192

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

disallowance of both direct and indirect expenditure in relation to the exempt income. Also, section 115JB (1)(f) uses the same expression. 3.2 (a) There is fundamental difference between the “Receipt” and “Income”. The concept of matching principle as explained and found to be central spine of accounting standard of recording various transactions for computation of income is based

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

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

disallowed the depreciation of Rs.99,03,534 @ 25% on\nthe distribution network of Rs.3,96,14,137 and Rs.9,89,39,700 @25% on\ncustomer relations of Rs.39,57,58,800 claimed by the assessee. The learned\nCIT(A), vide impugned order, adopting its reasoning applied for denial of\ndepreciation on goodwill held that from the details of assets