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) applying the above said ratio the same works out to Rs. 19,345/- (refer para 4.7 of assessment order) and accordingly the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D would be reduced to Rs.19,345/-. In that case it is necessary to examine whether the disallowance can be reduced below the suo-motu disallowance at the stage of appeal before

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)

249,557,343., Was partly allowed. Therefore both the parties are aggrieved and are in appeal. 39. The assessee is aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT – A wherein the disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act made by the learned assessing officer was upheld except to the exception that the learned assessing officer was directed

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 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)

249,557,343., Was partly allowed. Therefore both the parties are aggrieved and are in appeal. 39. The assessee is aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT – A wherein the disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act made by the learned assessing officer was upheld except to the exception that the learned assessing officer was directed

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)

249,557,343., Was partly allowed. Therefore both the parties are aggrieved and are in appeal. 39. The assessee is aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT – A wherein the disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act made by the learned assessing officer was upheld except to the exception that the learned assessing officer was directed

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)

249,557,343., Was partly allowed. Therefore both the parties are aggrieved and are in appeal. 39. The assessee is aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT – A wherein the disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act made by the learned assessing officer was upheld except to the exception that the learned assessing officer was directed

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

2)(iii)\napplying the above said ratio the same works out to Rs.19,345/- (refer para 4.7 of\nassessment order) and accordingly the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D\nwould be reduced to Rs.19,345/-. In that case it is necessary to examine whether the\ndisallowance can be reduced below the suo-motu disallowance at the stage of appeal\nbefore

MUMBAI KAMGAR MADHYAWARTI GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) section

MUMBAI KAMGAR MADHYAWARTI GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) section

MUMBAI KAMGAR MADHYAWARTI GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) section

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

2), specific modes of investment/ deposits under section 11(5) and other related provisions of Section 13”. Satisfied with the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no issues with respect to section 11 and 15, and he noted that the income derived from property held under trust, which included these investments, is covered by the exemption under

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

2), specific modes of investment/ deposits under section 11(5) and other related provisions of Section 13”. Satisfied with the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no issues with respect to section 11 and 15, and he noted that the income derived from property held under trust, which included these investments, is covered by the exemption under

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

2)(iii)\napplying the above said ratio the same works out to Rs.19,345/- (refer para 4.7 of\nassessment order) and accordingly the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D\nwould be reduced to Rs.19,345/-. In that case it is necessary to examine whether the\ndisallowance can be reduced below the suo-motu disallowance at the stage of appeal\nbefore

SHRI KUMAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. JAO MUM -W-22(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shrikumar Co-Operative Housing Asst. Dir. Of I. Tax, Cpc Jao Mum- Society Ltd., W-22(3)(1), Vs. Nehru Road, Santacruz (East), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400055. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaaas 8110 J Appellant Respondent

disallowed in the above-mentioned order. mentioned order. 5.2. The appellant has claimed deduction under Section 80P. The 5.2. The appellant has claimed deduction under Section 80P. The 5.2. The appellant has claimed deduction under Section 80P. The relevant part of the Act is being reproduced below: relevant part of the Act is being reproduced below: "80P(1) Where

ACIT- 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

06/Mum/2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 14A read with Rule 8D after recording dissatisfaction. He submitted, as against the exempt income earned of Rs.87,61,334/-, the assessee has disallowed paltry amount of Rs.8,294/- on purely adhoc basis without following the methodology under Rule 8D(2). He submitted, the learned First Appellate Authority also fell in error by directing disallowance at 2

ACIT- 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

06/Mum/2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 14A read with Rule 8D after recording dissatisfaction. He submitted, as against the exempt income earned of Rs.87,61,334/-, the assessee has disallowed paltry amount of Rs.8,294/- on purely adhoc basis without following the methodology under Rule 8D(2). He submitted, the learned First Appellate Authority also fell in error by directing disallowance at 2

ACIT- 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

06/Mum/2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 14A read with Rule 8D after recording dissatisfaction. He submitted, as against the exempt income earned of Rs.87,61,334/-, the assessee has disallowed paltry amount of Rs.8,294/- on purely adhoc basis without following the methodology under Rule 8D(2). He submitted, the learned First Appellate Authority also fell in error by directing disallowance at 2

ACIT- 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

06/Mum/2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 14A read with Rule 8D after recording dissatisfaction. He submitted, as against the exempt income earned of Rs.87,61,334/-, the assessee has disallowed paltry amount of Rs.8,294/- on purely adhoc basis without following the methodology under Rule 8D(2). He submitted, the learned First Appellate Authority also fell in error by directing disallowance at 2

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

disallowances and assessed total income under normal provisions of the Act at ₹354,42,01,379/ 354,42,01,379/- and computed book profit of ₹40,69,06,175/-. As the income determined under section 115JB . As the income determined under section 115JB . As the income determined under section 115JB