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

4. The assessee vide letter dated 30.04.2015 has raised the following additional ground with regard to disallowance under section 14A. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant prays that investments in shares of domestic companies, dividend from which is subject to tax under section 115-O ought to be excluded

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

4. The assessee vide letter dated 30.04.2015 has raised the following additional ground with regard to disallowance under section 14A. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant prays that investments in shares of domestic companies, dividend from which is subject to tax under section 115-O ought to be excluded

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

4. The assessee vide letter dated 30.04.2015 has raised the following additional ground with regard to disallowance under section 14A. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant prays that investments in shares of domestic companies, dividend from which is subject to tax under section 115-O ought to be excluded

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

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 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 80P(4

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

4\n4.\nThe assessee vide letter dated 30.04.2015 has raised the following additional\nground with regard to disallowance under section 14A.\n(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant\nprays that investments in shares of domestic companies, dividend from which is\nsubject to tax under section 115-O ought

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)

b) Guarantees by bank given on behalf of a subsidiary company/joint venture. 409 lakhs (c) Guarantees given to banks/ shipyard on behalf of subsidiaries. 128192 lakhs pg. 26 062. In view of the above findings, and as the international transaction is required to be benchmarked for each financial/assessment year, we are of the view that the issue of performance guarantee

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)

b) Guarantees by bank given on behalf of a subsidiary company/joint venture. 409 lakhs (c) Guarantees given to banks/ shipyard on behalf of subsidiaries. 128192 lakhs pg. 26 062. In view of the above findings, and as the international transaction is required to be benchmarked for each financial/assessment year, we are of the view that the issue of performance guarantee

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)

b) Guarantees by bank given on behalf of a subsidiary company/joint venture. 409 lakhs (c) Guarantees given to banks/ shipyard on behalf of subsidiaries. 128192 lakhs pg. 26 062. In view of the above findings, and as the international transaction is required to be benchmarked for each financial/assessment year, we are of the view that the issue of performance guarantee

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)

b) Guarantees by bank given on behalf of a subsidiary company/joint venture. 409 lakhs (c) Guarantees given to banks/ shipyard on behalf of subsidiaries. 128192 lakhs pg. 26 062. In view of the above findings, and as the international transaction is required to be benchmarked for each financial/assessment year, we are of the view that the issue of performance guarantee

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

4\n4.\nThe assessee vide letter dated 30.04.2015 has raised the following additional\nground with regard to disallowance under section 14A.\n(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant\nprays that investments in shares of domestic companies, dividend from which is\nsubject to tax under section 115-O ought

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

b. Specific provision of sections 36(1)(iv)/36(1)(v) and 40A(7)/40A(9) of the Act are applicable to the pension liability. Further, the same should only be allowed on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act. Hence, a general provision like section 37(1) of the Act cannot apply. 18. We noted that

MARICO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 9(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

249 Total 524,260/- Arm’s length interest to be charged in Rs.@45.08(A) 2,36,32,987/- 1,65,45,240/- Amount charged by the assessee (B) Transfer pricing Adjustment (A-B) 70,87,747/- 2.3.The TPO found that the assessee had provided Corporate Guarantee(CG) to Citibank (India)so that MBL Industries Ltd.(MBLIL) could avail

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

4. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee pertains to disallowance of INR.47,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of payment towards fines and penalties which was confirmed by the CIT(A). During the course of hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, under instruction, stated that the Assessee does not wish to press this ground. Accordingly, Ground

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

b) of the Act are not applicable to the instant case. However, the\nlearned DRP held that the payment to an extent of Rs.172.90 crore (i.e., Rs.\n210 crore minus Rs.37.9 crore) as excessive on the basis that there was no\nvalue addition by M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., which can justify an abnormal\nincrease in the rentals for the same

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

b) of the Act are not applicable to the instant case. However, the\nlearned DRP held that the payment to an extent of Rs.172.90 crore (i.e., Rs.\n210 crore minus Rs.37.9 crore) as excessive on the basis that there was no\nvalue addition by M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., which can justify an abnormal\nincrease in the rentals for the same