UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JT.CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) will not be applicable to the person claiming the expenditure merely because the person making the payment is a different person. Such an interpretation will render the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) superfluous and infructuous. d) Therefore, it is submitted that the interpretation put forward by the Learned DR is incorrect and unsustainable

ACIT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Mbmer & Shri Saktijit Dey

section 14A are applicable in respect of investments made by the appellant in the shares of the company and in the partnership firm. 8. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the average rate of interest at 15.44%. Depreciation on leased assets 9. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation

M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

Section 14A can be invoked and disallowance of expenditure can be made, there are three decisions of the different High Courts directly on the issue and against the appellant-Revenue. No contrary decision of a High Court has been shown to us. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s. Lakhani Marketing Incl

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. ()

disallowing the claim of weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act on the ground that the Appellant has failed to submit necessary documentary evidences. 1 : 2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, it is entitled to claim weighted deduction

FIDUCIARY SHARES & STOCKS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfiduciary Shares & Stock P. Ltd. Acit, Circle 4(2) Unit No. T7B, 5Th Floor, Phoenix Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road House, Block No. 2, Phoenix Mills Vs. Mumbai 400020 Compound, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf9759N Appellant Respondent

disallowing the assessee’s claim for setting off the loss on trading of shares against other business income. In this regard, the learned A.R. for the assessee referred to the recommendations of Wanchoo Committee report of December, 1971 pursuant to which the Explanation to section 73 of the Act was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 w.e.f

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 14A can be invoked and disallowance of expenditure can be made, there are three decisions of the different High Courts directly on the issue and against the appellant-Revenue. No contrary decision of a High Court has been shown to us. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s. Lakhani Marketing inci

HUBTOWN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 14A can be invoked and disallowance of expenditure can be made, there are three decisions of the different High Courts directly on the issue and against the appellant-Revenue. No contrary decision of a High Court has been shown to us. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s. Lakhani Marketing inci

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the above 2 items included in computation of deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 21. During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the above 2 items included in computation of deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 21. During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the above 2 items included in computation of deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 21. During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the above 2 items included in computation of deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 21. During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 35A of the Act has been allowed, applying the rule of consistency also assessee’s claim of deduction in the impugned assessment year cannot be disallowed. Therefore, we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. 65. In ground no.5, the Revenue has challenged deletion of addition

FINE ESTATES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result,both the appeal filed by the Revenue and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri. G. Manjunatha

disallowance of Rs. 80,66,204/-. The main contention of the assessee in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment vs. CIT (supra) that in absence of any satisfaction as required under section

ACIT CIR 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINE ESTATES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result,both the appeal filed by the Revenue and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri. G. Manjunatha

disallowance of Rs. 80,66,204/-. The main contention of the assessee in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment vs. CIT (supra) that in absence of any satisfaction as required under section

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

disallowance under Section 80 of the Rules.\nSuch abdication of duty is not permissible in law. Since no such\nexercise has been undertaken by the assessing authority, the case\ncalls for a remand.\"\n\n10.7 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income-\ntax-I Vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd.3, has held and observed

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

disallowance u/s that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in trade business etc., the Ld. Counsel submitted as under: the Ld. Counsel

DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

disallowance u/s that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in 14A of the Act could be made when securities were held as stock in trade business etc., the Ld. Counsel submitted as under: the Ld. Counsel

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

disallowance under Section 80 of the Rules.\nSuch abdication of duty is not permissible in law. Since no such\nexercise has been undertaken by the assessing authority, the case\ncalls for a remand.\"\n10.7 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income-\ntax-I Vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd.3, has held and observed as under