GANNON DUNKERLEY & CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

disallowance observing as under: “7.5 With respect payment of PF dues, the facts of the 7.5 With respect payment of PF dues, the facts of the 7.5 With respect payment of PF dues, the facts of the case are carefully considered. It is pertinent to note that case are carefully considered. It is pertinent to note that case are carefully

FRIGORIFICO ALLANA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am

vi) [2008] 24 SOT 180 (MUM.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'K' Madaus Pharmaceutical (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT IT APPEAL N0. 554 (MUM.) OF 2007 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04] APRIL 2, 2008. Section 43B, read with sections 2(24)(x), 36(1) (v) and 36(l)(va), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

vi) CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Share Brokers (P) Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) The Ld. A.R. finally prayed before the Bench that in view of these foregoing arguments and the ratio laid down by various courts the addition of Rs.90 crores as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments

DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. ATEEV V GALA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-17(2), Ateev V. Gala, R. No.217, 02Nd Floor, 575/A, The Orient Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Jamshed Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Matunga Mumbai-400019 Pan No.Aalpg6039N (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

disallowance of Rs.85 lakhs received as gift from HUF without appreciating the fact that HUF does not come under the term ‘group of relatives’ defined u/s 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. During hearing, Shri R.P. Meena, ld. CIT-DR, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by advancing arguments, which is identical

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

COX & KINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

vi) and for that purpose we have to read the sub section strictly. We cannot widen the scope of sub section by saying that the definition as a whole is inclusive and not exhaustive. In the present case, the words "chargeable under section 45" are very important. They are not being read by the Department. These words cannot be omitted

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

disallowed by the AO should be allowed as a deduction. Through additional ground the assessee is making an additional claim of Rs. 3,36,85,160/- towards ESOP expenditure being the difference between the value of shares using Fair Value method of Rs.4,95,88,603 and the intrinsic value of Rs.1,59,03,443 debited in the books

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

disallowed by the AO should be allowed as a deduction. Through additional ground the assessee is making an additional claim of Rs. 3,36,85,160/- towards ESOP expenditure being the difference between the value of shares using Fair Value method of Rs.4,95,88,603 and the intrinsic value of Rs.1,59,03,443 debited in the books

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

disallowed by the AO should be allowed as a deduction. Through additional ground the assessee is making an additional claim of Rs. 3,36,85,160/- towards ESOP expenditure being the difference between the value of shares using Fair Value method of Rs.4,95,88,603 and the intrinsic value of Rs.1,59,03,443 debited in the books

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

VI Deductions cannot be telescoped or imported in Section 10-A or 10- B of the Act. The words „derived by an Undertaking‟ in Section 10-A or 10-B are different from „derived from‟ employed in Section 80-HH etc. Therefore all Profits and Gains of the Undertaking including the incidental income by way of interest on Bank Deposits

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

VI Deductions cannot be telescoped or imported in Section 10-A or 10- B of the Act. The words „derived by an Undertaking‟ in Section 10-A or 10-B are different from „derived from‟ employed in Section 80-HH etc. Therefore all Profits and Gains of the Undertaking including the incidental income by way of interest on Bank Deposits

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) would not be available meaning thereby t would not be available meaning thereby that deduction u/s hat deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) is available only in respect of income which

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) would not be available meaning thereby t would not be available meaning thereby that deduction u/s hat deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) is available only in respect of income which

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) would not be available meaning thereby t would not be available meaning thereby that deduction u/s hat deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) is available only in respect of income which

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) would not be available meaning thereby t would not be available meaning thereby that deduction u/s hat deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) is available only in respect of income which

ITO-26(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) would not be available meaning thereby t would not be available meaning thereby that deduction u/s hat deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) is available only in respect of income which

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) would not be available meaning thereby t would not be available meaning thereby that deduction u/s hat deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) is available only in respect of income which