ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

disallowance under Section 2(22)(e) of the I. T. Act. During the assessment year under consideration namely 20062007, credit

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

section 2(22) (e) of the Act and treated the amount of accumulated profit as deemed dividend and disallowed the benefits

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

ACIT 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATED HOSPITALITY LTD DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted. Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A) order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 1 of Revenue’s appeal

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

2) clearly delineates two distinct the statutory scheme. Rule 8D(2) clearly delineates two distinct the statutory scheme. Rule 8D(2) clearly delineates two distinct categories of expenditure: categories of expenditure: (i) direct expenditure direct expenditure, including direct interest expenditure, , including direct interest expenditure, incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income, which must be for the purpose of earning

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

RAMESH PREMJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

disallowance was made from all the details and facts available on record and, therefore, the main condition for reopening the case beyond four years which is failure on the part of Appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts was not established by the AO. Hon’ble ITAT is requested to reverse the order 2 A.Y. 2012-13 Ramesh

ITO 7(2)(4, MUMBAI vs. SUNJEWLES INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 10AA of the Act, on the grounds that assessee has set up new unit in SEZ by splitting/reconstruction of already existing unit. The AO also made addition towards deemed dividend under Section 2(22

ASST CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNJEWELS INTERNATONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 10AA of the Act, on the grounds that assessee has set up new unit in SEZ by splitting/reconstruction of already existing unit. The AO also made addition towards deemed dividend under Section 2(22

DCIT-CC-4(2), , MUMBAI vs. BIRLA GROUP HOLDINGS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Cit, Cc-4(2), Central Birla Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Range-4, 1St Floor Industry House, 159 Vs. Room No. 1921, 19Th Floor, Churchgate Reclamation, Air India Building Nariman Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacr 2250 C Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2) which prescribes a methodology for disallowance to be made u/s. 14A." methodology for disallowance to be made u/s. 14A." methodology for disallowance to be made u/s. 14A." 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee a non Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee a non Briefly stated, facts

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

2(iii) of Rule 8D of Rs. 12,01,70,250/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed by the ld.AO at Rs.14,17,22

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

disallowance can be made u/s 37 of the Act. made u/s 37 of the Act.” 7.2 Before us, the Ld. Counsel Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee submitted that firstly section 40A(2)(b) of the Act is not section 40A(2)(b) of the Act is not applicable applicable in the case

JAI JALARAM CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jai Jalaram Co-Operative Credit The Ito Ward 29(1)(5), Society Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Shop No. -2 Ground Floor, Shop Complex, No. -2 Ground Floor, Mulund Mumbai-400051. Siddhivinayak C.H.S. Near Punjab National Bank Zaver Road, Mulund West, Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aaaaj 2603 B Appellant Respondent

disallowed the deduction claimed for the interest earned from Cooperative banks u/s 80P. With regard to the interest or erative banks u/s 80P. With regard to the interest or erative banks u/s 80P. With regard to the interest or dividend income earned from a Co dividend income earned from a Co-operative bank/ Scheduled operative bank/ Scheduled Bank

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)

2(iii) of Rule 8D of Rs. 12,01,70,250/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed by the ld.AO at Rs.14,17,22

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)

2(iii) of Rule 8D of Rs. 12,01,70,250/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A was computed by the ld.AO at Rs.14,17,22

BLOOM PACKAGING P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act; (ii) addition of Rs. 14,797/- based on the AIR reports; (iii) write off of advance of Rs. 5 lakhs u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act; (iv) applicability of the provisions of section 2(22

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 2 (19 AA) of the act. viii. In any event provisions of the deemed dividend cannot be applied as there is no release of any assets by the assessee to its shareholders as assessee has transferred its ―undertaking‖ to Aditya Birla capital limited and Aditya Birla capital limited has issued equity shares of Aditya Birla capital limited

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 2 (19 AA) of the act. viii. In any event provisions of the deemed dividend cannot be applied as there is no release of any assets by the assessee to its shareholders as assessee has transferred its ―undertaking‖ to Aditya Birla capital limited and Aditya Birla capital limited has issued equity shares of Aditya Birla capital limited