YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance has been made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the category of investment available for sales, held for maturity or held for trading. He held that if the securities are held for trading then the brokerage expenses relating to that should be disallowed. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 384,405/– subject to verification by the learned

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

disallowed as per the provision of\nsection 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of\nthe Assessing Officer.\n6.2.\nIn appeal before the Tribunal it was submitted that the M/s Team\nLease had obtained a certificate under Section 197

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as it is not applicable to insurance companies.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 37(1)", "Section 40(a)(i)", "Section 40(a)(ia)", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 43B", "Section 115-O", "Section 244A", "Section 194H", "Section 197

DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A, the learned dispute resolution panel rejected the objection of the assessee following the decision of the coordinate bench in 37 taxmann.com 128. 014. With respect to the other income treating the same as non-tonnage tax income following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s case

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 14 A, the learned dispute resolution panel rejected the objection of the assessee following the decision of the coordinate bench in 37 taxmann.com 128. 014. With respect to the other income treating the same as non-tonnage tax income following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s case

COLO COLOUR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd., Ito-Ward-6(2)(1), 1St Floor, Dadar Departmental Stores, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.C. Jawale Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabcc 3349 L Appellant Respondent

197(1B) as reproduced below: (1B) The provisions of this section shall not apply where the amount of any B) The provisions of this section shall not apply where the amount of any B) The provisions of this section shall not apply where the amount of any income of the nature referred to in sub income of the nature referred

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

MANGAL KESHAV SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini, Hon’Blemangal Keshav Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit-4(3)(2), (Erstwhile Known As Mangal Mumbai. Keshav Holdings Ltd.) 501, Heritage Plaza, J.P. Road, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Pan No. Aaecm 6524 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110% of that sum, i.e., Rs.52,56,197/-. By no stretch of imagination can Section

DCIT 3(2) (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MUKUND LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground no 3 is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance, this Court is in agreement and follows the principles declared in Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) etc. and no question of law arises." The Supreme Court dismissed the revenue's SLP PCIT 7 vs. Rattan India Infrastructure Ltd. [SLP no. 44853/2018] (SCJ dated 04.01.2019 on the ground of low tax effect, leaving the question of law open. . CIT (Central-1), Chennai

VOLTAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Voltas Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(3) Voltas House - A Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar Road M.K. Road Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400033 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacv2809D Appellant Respondent

disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110% of that sum, i.e., `52,56,197/-. By no stretch of imagination can Section

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONA FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DILHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

Section 14A should be restricted to INR 63,29,819/- (e. INR 54,00,000 plus direct expenditure of salary of personnel 37 ITA No. 1259/Mum/2021-WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. suo-moto disallowed by the Assessee of INR 9,29,819) vis-à-vis INR 3,57,19,197

ACIT CIRCLE-2 (1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S MADURA GARMENTS LIFESTYLE RETAIL CO. LTD (NOW MERGED WITH ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Retail Co. Ltd. (Now Merged With Bhavan, M.K. Road, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aditya Birla Finance Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle-2(1)(1), (Successor Of M/S Madura Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Garments & Lifestyle Retail Bhavan, M.K. Road, Company Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Jishaan Jain, Ars Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2022

197/-. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court (supra) observed that disallowance cannot exceed the entire exempted income. But in the instant case assessee itself has identified the expenditure of interest incurred for earning of exempted income and therefore ratio of said decision cannot be imported over the facts of the assessee. The basic principle of disallowance under section

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

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