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

24,40, 103/-, when computing the disallowance under clause 2(ii) of Rule 8D. Since the disallowance computed considering the total interest expenditure exceeds the total interest expenditure claimed against the non-tonnage income, the interest expenditure liable for disallowance has been restricted to the total expenditure by way of interest claimed against the non-tonnage income only, whereby

M/S G.L.CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/NATIONAL FACE LESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S G.L. Construction Pvt. Ltd, Acit/National Faceless 304, Gokul Arcade B, Subhash Appeal Centre, Road, Near Garware, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 3438 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. N.R. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date. account in the relevant fund

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)

24,636/-) have been excluded while computing the business income of the assessee company. 9. In so far as disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is concerned, the actual administrative expenditure incurred by the Treasury division including employee costs and other relatable expenses has been allocated by the assessee company between the taxable and non-taxable gross receipts

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)

24,636/-) have been excluded while computing the business income of the assessee company. 9. In so far as disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is concerned, the actual administrative expenditure incurred by the Treasury division including employee costs and other relatable expenses has been allocated by the assessee company between the taxable and non-taxable gross receipts

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1) (va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24) (x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1) (va) are satisfied

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

disallowance to the suo-moto disallowance offered by the assessee and the\nsaid relief has not been considered by the CIT (A). 4. The Id. AR with regard to the plea that\ndisallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance, submitted that the\nassessee has investments which are in the nature of stock in trade and also are strategic

RUSTOMJEE ASPIREE PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 26(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rustomjee Aspiree Premises Co- Ito Ward 26(2)(5), Op. Soc. Ltd., Room No. 319, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Vs. Ground Floor, Rustomjee Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, ‘G’ Block Aspiree, Cts No. 628, Ai, Pt Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Kurla, Eatern Express Highway, (East), Mumbai-400051. Sion, Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabar 4001 L Appellant Respondent

24,71, 186/- earned by the appellant from Saraswat Cooperative Bank as by the appellant from Saraswat Cooperative Bank as by the appellant from Saraswat Cooperative Bank as interest on saving bank and fixed deposit accounts is not interest on saving bank and fixed deposit accounts is not interest on saving bank and fixed deposit accounts is not eligible

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

2,09,37,762/-. During the course of hearing the ld AR submitted that if the issue is remitted as in earlier years, considering the volume of data it may become challenging for both the assessee as well as the AO to examine the entire data. Therefore the ld AR is praying that the AO may be directed to disallow

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

2,09,37,762/-. During the course of hearing the ld AR submitted that if the issue is remitted as in earlier years, considering the volume of data it may become challenging for both the assessee as well as the AO to examine the entire data. Therefore the ld AR is praying that the AO may be directed to disallow

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

2,09,37,762/-. During the course of hearing the ld AR submitted that if the issue is remitted as in earlier years, considering the volume of data it may become challenging for both the assessee as well as the AO to examine the entire data. Therefore the ld AR is praying that the AO may be directed to disallow

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above

2(24)(xviii), effective from April 1st, 2015.\nThus, said waiver amounts to a benefit in the hands of the assesse and the\nsum waived is taxable under section 28(iv) of the Act. We thus direct the\nLd.AO to disallow

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

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

24) of the Act wherein it covers income relating to capital and\nalso to the revenue account transactions. However, since\nSection 28 forms part of Part \"D\" of Chapter IV of the Act, what\nis to be considered under this section is 'income' on revenue\naccount and not on capital account. Section 28(iv) is nothing\nbut the extended definition

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

24 taxmann.com\n310), I find that the re-opening of the assessment is not valid since there was no new\nmaterial available before the AO for re-opening the assessment. Thus the ground raised\nby the appellant is allowed.”\n18.\nIn the light of above facts and a thorough discussion on judicial\npronouncements relied upon by both the parties

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

24) read with section 4 and 5 of the Act] ii. Not covered by the order heads of income. However, the benefit accrued to the Appellant in present case is in the capital field and can be brought to tax under the head capital gain. Accordingly, the provisions of section 56(1) cannot be resorted

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

24) read with section 4 and 5 of the Act] ii. Not covered by the order heads of income. However, the benefit accrued to the Appellant in present case is in the capital field and can be brought to tax under the head capital gain. Accordingly, the provisions of section 56(1) cannot be resorted

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

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

24,636/-)\nhave been excluded while computing the business income of the\nassessee company.\n9. In so far as disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is concerned,\nthe actual administrative expenditure incurred by the Treasury\ndivision including employee costs and other relatable expenses\nhas been allocated by the assessee company between the taxable\nand non-taxable gross receipts

ACIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act . The Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law after allowing adequate opportunity of allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The being heard to the assessee

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowing the expenditure\non Scientific Research and Development u/s 35(2AB) totaling to Rs.\n4,24,13,526/- for all the three units, on the basis of the auditor's\ncertificate which stated that these expenses are beyond the\nguidelines laid down by DSIR. These guidelines are in contradiction\nwith the provisions of section