PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

section 40(a)(i) of the Act and tax should have been deducted at source by the assessee firm u/s 195 of the Act or an application should have been made by the assessee firm for no deduction of tax at source u/s 195(2) of the Act . Thus the AO held that these payments to non-resident by assessee

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

section 40(a)(i) of the Act and tax should have been deducted at source by the assessee firm u/s 195 of the Act or an application should have been made by the assessee firm for no deduction of tax at source u/s 195(2) of the Act . Thus the AO held that these payments to non-resident by assessee

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

234/-, Further, the learned DRP has directed the ld. AO to compute the amount liable for disallowance under clause 2(i) of Rule 8D at Rs.81,36,380/- and has confirmed the disallowance under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D of Rs. 12,01,70,250/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section

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

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

TATA STEEL LTD. (SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ERSTWHILE KALIMATI INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtata Steel Ltd. (Successor-In- Dcit - 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Interest To The Erstwhile Kalimati Investment Company Ltd.), Vs. Room No. 552, M.K. Marg, Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Mumbai-400020. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aaact2803M Appellant Respondent

disallowed under Section 14-A. 3. Interest under Section 234-B of the Act As may be On the facts

ADDL CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

section 37(1) of the Act. 12.1 Revenue has also contended that the learned CIT(A), while deleting the disallowance of `28,52.28,246/- on account of expenditure incurred on issue of FBBCs has wrongly mentioned that the Hon'ble Apex Court had overruled the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics

RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

section 37(1) of the Act. 12.1 Revenue has also contended that the learned CIT(A), while deleting the disallowance of `28,52.28,246/- on account of expenditure incurred on issue of FBBCs has wrongly mentioned that the Hon'ble Apex Court had overruled the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics

DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. COX & KINGS (I) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

disallowed under section 14A. In reply it was submitted by the assessee that it has not earned any dividend income during the year from investment and it has not incurred any indirect expenses also. The assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 234

COX AND KINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

disallowed under section 14A. In reply it was submitted by the assessee that it has not earned any dividend income during the year from investment and it has not incurred any indirect expenses also. The assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 234

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)

234/-, Further, the learned DRP has directed the ld. AO to compute the amount liable for disallowance under clause 2(i) of Rule 8D at Rs.81,36,380/- and has confirmed the disallowance under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D of Rs. 12,01,70,250/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section

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)

234/-, Further, the learned DRP has directed the ld. AO to compute the amount liable for disallowance under clause 2(i) of Rule 8D at Rs.81,36,380/- and has confirmed the disallowance under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D of Rs. 12,01,70,250/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowances made in MR construction raised by way of ground No 2, 4 and 7 are not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing under the instruction of the assessee. Accordingly, these three issues are dismissed as not pressed. 43 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 52. The next two issues

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowances made in MR construction raised by way of ground No 2, 4 and 7 are not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing under the instruction of the assessee. Accordingly, these three issues are dismissed as not pressed. 43 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 52. The next two issues

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowances made in MR construction raised by way of ground No 2, 4 and 7 are not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing under the instruction of the assessee. Accordingly, these three issues are dismissed as not pressed. 43 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 52. The next two issues

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowances made in MR construction raised by way of ground No 2, 4 and 7 are not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing under the instruction of the assessee. Accordingly, these three issues are dismissed as not pressed. 43 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 52. The next two issues