THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance under section 14 A) through rule 8D (2) (ii) and (iii). Computed by excluding those investments on which no dividend

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance under section 14 A) through rule 8D (2) (ii) and (iii). Computed by excluding those investments on which no dividend

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , 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, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, 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 under section 14 A) through rule 8D (2) (ii) and (iii). Computed by excluding those investments on which no dividend

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of shares of\nprivate companies only but not to “any property” as mentioned in the\nsection 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Further, the non-applicability\nclause is also very clear in both the sections. Beside the above,\nthe explanation applicable for section 56(2)(via) of the Act is only\nrelated to “fair market value” as described

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A of the Act r.w.r.8D which the AO has considered for the purpose of making the disallowance. The ld. DR further argued that the assessee has repeatedly changed its stand towards the disallowance first by seeking exclusion of certain interest expenditure for the purpose of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and now making a fresh claim before

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A of the Act r.w.r.8D which the AO has considered for the purpose of making the disallowance. The ld. DR further argued that the assessee has repeatedly changed its stand towards the disallowance first by seeking exclusion of certain interest expenditure for the purpose of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and now making a fresh claim before

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A of the Act r.w.r.8D which the AO has considered for the purpose of making the disallowance. The ld. DR further argued that the assessee has repeatedly changed its stand towards the disallowance first by seeking exclusion of certain interest expenditure for the purpose of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and now making a fresh claim before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

iii) deposit in any account with a scheduled bank or a co deposit in any account with a scheduled bank or a co operative deposit in any account with a scheduled bank or a co society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a society engaged

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed at Rs.1,17,99,604. • The assessee filed the revised working of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act during the course of the assessment proceedings as certain investments were inadvertently considered as yielding exempt dividend income when filing the Return of Income

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

iii) of the Rules to the extent reduced by the CIT(A). Ground No. 3 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(i) & 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules deleted by the CIT(A). 4.2. The facts relevant for adjudication of the grounds under consideration

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed at Rs.1,17,99,604.  The assessee filed the revised working of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act during the course of the assessment proceedings as certain investments were inadvertently considered as yielding exempt dividend income when filing the Return of Income

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed at Rs.1,17,99,604.  The assessee filed the revised working of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act during the course of the assessment proceedings as certain investments were inadvertently considered as yielding exempt dividend income when filing the Return of Income

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

14. erred in considering the total investments instead of only those investments from which exempt income is eared during 5 ITA . No. 1694/MUM/2023 & 2036/MUM/2023 SICOM LTD. the year while computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, Disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income 15. Without prejudice

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

2)(iii) amounting to\nRs.17,02,920/-. Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that since the assessee\nhas not earned any exempt income no disallowance under section 14A is warranted.\nThe assessee without prejudice submitted a revised working of disallowance under\nsection 14A to the tune of Rs.67,84,605/-. The CIT(A) did not accept the\nsubmission

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

2) no disallowance of expenditure in the absence of the actual expenditure incurred by the company, (3) nexus between the exempt income and expenditure disallowed under section 14 A of the act needs to be established and the assessee has disallowed on its own , ₹ 6,996,212 which is computed on a rational basis and therefore the disallowance should

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment\n- Rs.3,60,61,410/-\n32.\nAggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)\nreduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs.67,84,065/- and deleted\n24\nITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16\nBajaj Electricals Limited\nthe disallowance made towards prior period expenditure. Both the assessee and the\nrevenue

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

14 A of the Act as it is clearly out of synchronization with the provisions of the law. He also rejected the working of the learned assessing officer applying the cost of earning the interest income compared with the investment. He asked the assessee to work out the disallowance in relation to interest on exempt income from foreign currency loans

INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI vs. IDBI STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

iii) Marvwanjee Cama Park\nCooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITORange-20(2)(2). Mumbai (ITA No.\n6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. (iv). Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan\nPemises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai. We further find\nthat the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale