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

47,00,310/-, The AO also disallowed a further notional amount of Rs. 12,01,70,250/- as indirect administrative expenditure under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D, being the amount computed @0.5% of the average value of investments held by the assessee. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A computed by the ld. AO was Rs.47

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

v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance under

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

v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance under

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

v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance under

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)

47,00,310/-, The AO also disallowed a further notional amount of Rs. 12,01,70,250/- as indirect administrative expenditure under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D, being the amount computed @0.5% of the average value of investments held by the assessee. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A computed by the ld. AO was Rs.47

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)

47,00,310/-, The AO also disallowed a further notional amount of Rs. 12,01,70,250/- as indirect administrative expenditure under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D, being the amount computed @0.5% of the average value of investments held by the assessee. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A computed by the ld. AO was Rs.47

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

Bench: us. 2.

v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017] 165 ITD 27/82 taxmann.com 415 it has been held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section 14A read with rule 8D. Following the said decision it is held that the addition towards clause (f) of Explanation

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 of Rs.23,69,58,913/- from common interest expenditure by allocating it in the ratio common interest expenditure by allocating it in the ratio common interest expenditure by allocating it in the ratio of assets employed between the tonnage and non of assets employed between the tonnage and non of assets employed between the tonnage and non- tonnage activities

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

47,543/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee . According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee . According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee was generating huge profit year after year from its activities. The was generating huge profit year after year from its activities was generating huge profit year after year from its activities learned Assessing Officer referred to amendment

TATA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2(3), MUMBAI

47,88,487/-\n3.1.\nBeing aggrieved the appellant carried the issue in appeal before\nthe CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) decline to give any relief on the\nabove issues. Agreeing with the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A)\ndismissed the grounds raised by the Appellant challenging the\nabove additions/disallowances made by Assessing Officer vide\norder dated 26/03/2009.\n3.2.\nBeing aggrieved

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

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

v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), the additional grounds for substantial cause and justice is taken on record and we proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 30. The Ld.AR submitted that language of section 80HH and section 10AA are pari material inasmuch as both the sections provides that "in computing the total income of the assessee, deduction

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

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

v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), the additional grounds for substantial cause and justice is taken on record and we proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 30. The Ld.AR submitted that language of section 80HH and section 10AA are pari material inasmuch as both the sections provides that "in computing the total income of the assessee, deduction

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

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482). But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts", 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482). But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts", 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482). But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts", 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482). But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts", 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482). But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts", 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries