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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act as against the net interest expenditure. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may thus be granted. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave

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

Section 14A will be Rs.29,91,90,710/-. 45. We have already given our finding in appeal for A.Y.2011-12 and accordingly, our finding given therein will apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal also and accordingly, the disallowance made by the ld. AO over and above the amount offered by the assessee are deleted. 46. In 2015-16 Revenue has raised

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

31. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section

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

31. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section

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

31. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section

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)

Section 14A will be Rs.29,91,90,710/-. 45. We have already given our finding in appeal for A.Y.2011-12 and accordingly, our finding given therein will apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal also and accordingly, the disallowance made by the ld. AO over and above the amount offered by the assessee are deleted. 46. In 2015-16 Revenue has raised

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)

Section 14A will be Rs.29,91,90,710/-. 45. We have already given our finding in appeal for A.Y.2011-12 and accordingly, our finding given therein will apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal also and accordingly, the disallowance made by the ld. AO over and above the amount offered by the assessee are deleted. 46. In 2015-16 Revenue has raised

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

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

Bench: us. 2.

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 3 & 4 30. Ground No. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue pertains to computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 30.1. Identical ground raised

ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

31" July 2001, cannot be said to be vesting power of Assessing Officer with the Addl. CIT. Similar is the situation with notification doted 1st August 2001, issued by the CIT, Mumbai, as it is a notification issued under section 120(1) and 120(2) and not under sub-section (4)(b). The third notification dated 8th August

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

2,36,81,525, made under section 14A of the Act already stands concluded in the original assessment, it cannot be re–visited again. However, applying the same principle, he deleted the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 29. The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw in the memorandum and articles of association which, according to the revenue, disentitled the assessee for claim under section

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

disallowing said expenditure incurred by the Appellant; 3. The Appellant prays that expenses on object of Appellant as claimed in the Computation of Income be allowed as deduction, in case, exemption w/s.11 is not granted to the Appellant; GROUND V: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

disallowing said expenditure incurred by the Appellant; 3. The Appellant prays that expenses on object of Appellant as claimed in the Computation of Income be allowed as deduction, in case, exemption w/s.11 is not granted to the Appellant; GROUND V: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

disallowing said expenditure incurred by the Appellant; 3. The Appellant prays that expenses on object of Appellant as claimed in the Computation of Income be allowed as deduction, in case, exemption w/s.11 is not granted to the Appellant; GROUND V: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

disallowing said expenditure incurred by the Appellant; 3. The Appellant prays that expenses on object of Appellant as claimed in the Computation of Income be allowed as deduction, in case, exemption w/s.11 is not granted to the Appellant; GROUND V: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

disallowing said expenditure incurred by the Appellant; 3. The Appellant prays that expenses on object of Appellant as claimed in the Computation of Income be allowed as deduction, in case, exemption w/s.11 is not granted to the Appellant; GROUND V: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw in the memorandum and articles of association which, according to the revenue, disentitled the assessee for claim under section