THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14 A are not attracted in case of the appellant. pg. 2 2. The learned DRP ought in holding that the aggregate interest expenditure incurred by the appellant pertaining to the tonnage and non-tonnage activities was to be considered for computing the amount liable for disallowance under sub clause (ii) of clause 2 of rule 8D, without appreciating

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14 A are not attracted in case of the appellant. pg. 2 2. The learned DRP ought in holding that the aggregate interest expenditure incurred by the appellant pertaining to the tonnage and non-tonnage activities was to be considered for computing the amount liable for disallowance under sub clause (ii) of clause 2 of rule 8D, without appreciating

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14 A are not attracted in case of the appellant. pg. 2 2. The learned DRP ought in holding that the aggregate interest expenditure incurred by the appellant pertaining to the tonnage and non-tonnage activities was to be considered for computing the amount liable for disallowance under sub clause (ii) of clause 2 of rule 8D, without appreciating

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 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also

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

Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 45 read with section 47(iv) of the Act on slump sale of business of Rs. 742,82,74,000 32. The learned AO after perusing the computation of total income along-with the MAT computation and the letter dated 1 December 2015 (Refer page 51 to 55 of Paperbook) which was on record

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

237/- 4 Under recovery of salary expenses from AE 93,12,637/- 5 Excessive AMP expenditure 22,01,14,350/- Total 36,38,25,151/- On 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act incorporating the above transfer pricing adjustment. In addition the Assessing Officer also proposed other

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

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

K. RAHEJA CORPORATE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act to the book profit of the assessee without appreciating the decision of the Hon‟ble ITAT Mumbai „F‟ Bench in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -18 & 19, Mumbai v. Viraj Profiles Ltd. in ITA NO. 4439/ (MUM.) of 2013 for A.Y. 2008-09.” 2. Briefly stated, the assessee

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA COPR PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act to the book profit of the assessee without appreciating the decision of the Hon‟ble ITAT Mumbai „F‟ Bench in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -18 & 19, Mumbai v. Viraj Profiles Ltd. in ITA NO. 4439/ (MUM.) of 2013 for A.Y. 2008-09.” 2. Briefly stated, the assessee

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowed an amount of Rs.2,24,49,087/- considering it to be capital in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) by following various judicial precedents as well as the DRP directions for A.Y. 2007-08 held that the expenses not covered under section 35 of the Act, for weighted deduction, but would be allowable under section 37 of the Act, unless

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 40(a)(2)(v) of the Act. After calling for necessary details and examining them, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made payment to PEL towards services claimed to have been rendered in respect of taxation management, fund management, accounts and finance, legal matter, secretarial matter, corporate matters, information technologies, etc. The Assessing Officer observed, the services

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

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

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

In the result, in the case of M

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

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

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

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount