APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section

ITO (TDS) 2(5), MUMBAI vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boaz

194-I of the Income Tax Act. Thus, question of deduction of TDS on above payment will not arise.” 8.1 It is also observed on perusal of order of ld. CIT(A) that assessee also referred clauses (v) and (vi) of sub-section (47) of section 2 and section 269UA(d) of the Income Tax Act and stated that lease

DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA TELESERVICES (MAH) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-8(3)(1) M/S Tata Teleservices (Mah) Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Ltd., D-26, Ttc Indl Area Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Midc, Sanpada, P.O. Turbhe, Mumbai-20. Navi Mumbai-400703. Vs. Pan: Aaach1458C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Hiten Chande (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

disallowance was deleted by following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra). We have noted that almost on identical grounds of appeal on the order passed under section 201(1) for Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal passed the following order: “7. We have considered the submissions

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(i) since the own funds of the Assessee were only INR 1355,19,82,325/- [as opposed to INR 12806,13,99,023/- computed by the CIT(A)] and therefore, the CIT(A) erred in arriving at the conclusion that the Assessee had sufficient interest free own funds to make

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance, which does not appear\nto be the legislative intent.\n109. A careful reading of section 80G further shows that the\nlegislature has expressly excluded only certain CSR contributions\nfrom the ambit of deduction. Specifically, section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk)\nand 80G(2)(a)(iiihl) provide that contributions made to Swachh\nBharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund shall not qualify

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURE CONSUMER LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FUTURE CONSUMER ENTERPRISES LIMITED ), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. In this context, following decisions can be referred to. i) ACIT v/s Gini &Jony Ltd., [2018] 172 ITD 472 (Mum. Trib.); ii) ACIT v/s Dish TV India Ltd. [2018] 194

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

194 ITD 463] (Bangalore ITAT), National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi ITAT), and DCIT v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (Kolkata ITAT), wherein the Tribunal has consistently taken the view that deductions allowable under Chapter VI-A cannot be denied merely because the expenditure was disallowed while computing business income. 113. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

194) of the Act. Since the Assessee had failed to deduct tax at source in compliance with the provisions of Section 194J of the Act, the Assessing Officer made disallowance

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

section 14 A of the act. However, interest relating to the borrowings used in the purchase of trading shares from which dividend had been received is required to be excluded from such disallowance. In reference to allowability of interest, Hon’ble ITAT at para 5.5 held that “We have carefully considered the various aspects of the matter

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE LD. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ ITO, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

194 H of the act is required to be made. d. Refurbished and rebate on defective products was given of ₹ 10,165,008/– in case of goods sold to the distributors are defective and brought to the notice of the assessee, the assessee gives an additional 30% discount to the distributors, the learned assessing officer held that this

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

disallowance under section 14A of the Act vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 9 November 2017 (Refer point 6 at page 56 of Paperbook). In response, the Assessee, vide submission dated 21 November 2017 (Refer page 90 to 93 of Paperbook) has submitted a detailed response. Further, the learned AO had thoroughly examined the copy

DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), MUMBAI

Section 194) of the Act, the Assessing Officer\ncorrectly made disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n11.5

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)

disallowed Rs.12,66,679/- as interest bearing funds being capital contribution by partners were utilised to invest in Mutual Funds which yielded tax free income to the assessee firm .Thus, the AO has duly complied with the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 for making disallowance.The Hon’ble Bombay High

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)

disallowed Rs.12,66,679/- as interest bearing funds being capital contribution by partners were utilised to invest in Mutual Funds which yielded tax free income to the assessee firm .Thus, the AO has duly complied with the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 for making disallowance.The Hon’ble Bombay High