DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.” In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.” Thus, in view of facts of the case and discussions made hereinabove Thus, in view of facts of the case and discussions made hereinabove Thus, in view of facts of the case and discussions made hereinabove and respectfully following the decision

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

7. Shri Farookh V. Irani, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, the NHAI had entered into a concession agreement with the assessee for developing, operating and maintaining the 4–lane carriage way from kms. 200 to kms. 250 on between Vijayawada and Vishakhapatnam section on National Highway no.5, otherwise known as Rajahmundry Dharmabharam Tuni Toll Road

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned PCIT erred in disallowing the deduction of donation paid and claimed in PCIT erred in disallowing the deduction of donation paid and PCIT erred in disallowing the deduction of donation paid and accordance with the provisions of section 80G of Income tax Act of accordance with

J.R DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance. which could attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The AO has recorded any reason of his satisfaction while initiating penalty in his assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C. Therefore, the penalty order is void ab initio. 5. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that

J.R DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance. which could attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The AO has recorded any reason of his satisfaction while initiating penalty in his assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C. Therefore, the penalty order is void ab initio. 5. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that

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

2(22)(e) of the Act do not apply on receipt of preference share application money by Appellant from BTPL; B. Addition of preference share application money received amounting to Rs.90.00,00,OOP/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. 7. erred in not adjudicating the ground on taxability

INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI vs. IDBI STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

7. After necessary deliberations,\nwe are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view\ntaken by thePr. CIT. Before proceeding any further, we may herein\nreproduce the relevant extract of the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec.\n80P(2) (d), as the same would have a strong bearing on the adjudication of\nthe issue before us. \"80P(2

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance in terms of Explanation 1 to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. 8 M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., 3.9. As stated earlier, the provisions of Insurance Act i.e. Section 2(9) and Section 101A(7

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

2 0 1 7 part of employee cost. The same was claimed in A.Y. 2011-12 and was therefore disallowed in A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. AT submits that the ld.CIT in his notice in para 12 (page 120 of the Paperbook) further observes that Assessing Officer accepted the income shown in the revised computation without application of mind

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

7. The ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of The ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the Revenue relates to the Revenue relates to disallowance of research fee of Rs.2,33,69,884/ disallowance of research fee of Rs.2,33,69,884/- deleted by the Ld. deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 The 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.14,17,22,864/- 7

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

disallowed deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act and in the deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act a deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act a light of the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the same light of the decision of the Supreme Court

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 (iii) Disallowance of ESOP expenses - Ground No. 3 (iv) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Ground No. 4 4 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited 4. The assessee vide letter dated 30.04.2015 has raised the following additional ground with regard to disallowance under section 14A. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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 (iii) Disallowance of ESOP expenses - Ground No. 3 (iv) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Ground No. 4 4 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited 4. The assessee vide letter dated 30.04.2015 has raised the following additional ground with regard to disallowance under section 14A. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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 (iii) Disallowance of ESOP expenses - Ground No. 3 (iv) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Ground No. 4 4 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited 4. The assessee vide letter dated 30.04.2015 has raised the following additional ground with regard to disallowance under section 14A. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of 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

section 80P(2)(d)/ 80P(2)(a)(i). Thus, the AO is justified in disallowing the deduction of Rs 2,86,069/ is justified in disallowing the deduction of Rs 2,86,069/ is justified in disallowing the deduction of Rs 2,86,069/- claimed u/s 80P of the Act. claimed u/s 80P of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal

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

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.14,17,22,864/- 7