STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowed. v. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35 (2AB) of the act at the rate of 200% of such

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance of Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of investments from which exempt income was actually earned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed 50% of the expenses towards capitalization to the cost of project. On further appeal, the CIT(A) held that the directors salary and handover facility expenses are incurred year after year and they are related to the business of the assessee in general and not project specific expenses. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that these expenses are neither capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed 50% of the expenses towards capitalization to the cost of project. On further appeal, the CIT(A) held that the directors salary and handover facility expenses are incurred year after year and they are related to the business of the assessee in general and not project specific expenses. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that these expenses are neither capital

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

section 14 A of ₹ 3,814,037,203/–. 25) While making such disallowance the learned assessing officer further considered the decisions of coordinate bench in Deputy Commissioner of income tax versus SG investment and industries Ltd [(2004) 89 ITD 44 (KOL)], honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus United Gen trust private limited [(200

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 3,20,92,006 under section 40(a) (i) of the Act. 5.2. Not appreciating that services availed by the appellant do not make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, etc. to the assessee under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA and hence shall not be subject to tax in India

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 3,20,92,006 under section 40(a) (i) of the Act. 5.2. Not appreciating that services availed by the appellant do not make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, etc. to the assessee under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA and hence shall not be subject to tax in India

ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

Disallowance under section 40 (3) 9,98,000 5 Cash deposit under section 68 ₹ 1,050,000 6 Undisclosed income from Lodha dwellers ₹ 14,476,200

PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

Disallowance under section 40 (3) 9,98,000 5 Cash deposit under section 68 ₹ 1,050,000 6 Undisclosed income from Lodha dwellers ₹ 14,476,200

TATA PETRODYNE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 14A of the Act has to be made as per rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, proposed to make such disallowance as per the said Rule. Though, the assessee objecting to the proposed disallowance submitted that the only expenditure indirectly attributable to earning of exempt income is proportionate salary cost of two employees, proportionate telephone expenses and related overhead

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

Section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk) and (iiihl). 8. On the facts and 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned circumstances of the case and in law the learned PCIT erred in law by claiming that Circular issued by Central Board of PCIT erred in law by claiming that Circular issued by Central Board

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Section 37(1) 2,05,35,800 TP Adjustment 36,38,25,151 Total Disallowances 659,75,09,200 Taxable

MACROTECH DEVEOPERS LIMITED (SUCESSOR TO SHREENIWAS COTTON MILLS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Dcit, Cc-7(3) Mills Ltd) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd) Dcit, Cc-7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri Asif Karmali

disallowance based on calculation as per section 14A r.w. Rule 8. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) is erred in directing the AO/TPO by taking ALP of Guarantee Commission at 0.3523% instead of 1.25% thereby allowing relief of ₹ 42,44,426/-. 7.Whether on the facts and circumstances

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

disallowed under section 14A of the Act; The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, or substitute all or any of the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal.” 9. At the time of hearing assessee submitted as under: - “Ground No. 1 to 5: Validity of proceedings under section 263 of the Act A. Revisionary assessment proceedings cannot be initiated unless the conjunctive

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 35(2AB) of the Act but the provisions of the Act do not prescribe any methodology of approval to be granted by the prescribed authority vis-à-vis expenditure from year to year. The amendment brought in by the IT (Tenth Amendment) Rules w.e.f. 01.07.2016, wherein separate part has been inserted for certifying the amount of expenditure from year

JT. COMM OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , CC - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RAJAMUNDRY EXPRESSWAY PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us :-

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act, though, on a completely different reasoning. 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

VINATI OPRGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for the statistical purpose and that of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

section 10B of Rs.30,07,58,200/-. So far as the assessment under normal provisions of the Act, the AO had made addition on account of disallowance

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

200 (All.) The Court while allowing deduction under section 80HHC of the Act held that the word "derived from" under section 80-HH has to be understood as something which has immediate nexus with the industrial undertaking. In the instant case, the scrap generated from the concerned units has direct and immediate nexus with the industrial undertaking since the said