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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.03.2013 3 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited for AY 2009-10, dated 07.09.2015 for AY 2011-12, dated 04.09.2015 for AY 2010- 11. AY 2009-10 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Fans, Telecommunication, Transmission Line Towers, Hot Dip Galvanizing

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.03.2013 3 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited for AY 2009-10, dated 07.09.2015 for AY 2011-12, dated 04.09.2015 for AY 2010- 11. AY 2009-10 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Fans, Telecommunication, Transmission Line Towers, Hot Dip Galvanizing

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.03.2013 3 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited for AY 2009-10, dated 07.09.2015 for AY 2011-12, dated 04.09.2015 for AY 2010- 11. AY 2009-10 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Fans, Telecommunication, Transmission Line Towers, Hot Dip Galvanizing

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order and further, there were no sufficient judicial ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 precedents, which prevented the assessee in not making the claim

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order and further, there were no sufficient judicial ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 precedents, which prevented the assessee in not making the claim

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order and further, there were no sufficient judicial ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 precedents, which prevented the assessee in not making the claim

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order and further, there were no sufficient judicial ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 precedents, which prevented the assessee in not making the claim

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order and further, there were no sufficient judicial ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 precedents, which prevented the assessee in not making the claim

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order and further, there were no sufficient judicial ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 precedents, which prevented the assessee in not making the claim

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.03.2013\nfor AY 2009-10, dated 07.09.2015 for AY 2011-12, dated 04.09.2015 for AY 2010-\n11.\nAY 2009-10\nITA No. 4172/Mum/2013\n2.\nThe assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Fans,\nTelecommunication, Transmission Line Towers, Hot Dip Galvanizing and trading in\nelectrical appliances

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 14A(2) of the Act. (iv) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that the amount (iv) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that the amount (iv) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant contended that the amount of disallowance must be restricted upto the exempt income earned during of disallowance must be restricted upto

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

250 of the Act. 2. We shall take up ITA No. 1694/MUM/2023 as a lead case and facts narrated. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals. I. Disallowance of notional Interest of Rs. 48,84,000/- under section

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.03.2013\nfor AY 2009-10, dated 07.09.2015 for AY 2011-12, dated 04.09.2015 for AY 2010-\n11.\nAY 2009-10\nITA No. 4172/Mum/2013\n2.\nThe assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Fans,\nTelecommunication, Transmission Line Towers, Hot Dip Galvanizing and trading in\nelectrical appliances

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

Section 250 of the Act rectifying order, dated 19/03/2019, passed by the CIT(A). 2.2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 3195/Mum/2019: “1. Disallowance

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance of Rs. 1,19,32,795/- under under Section 14A read with Rule 8D Rule 8D, both under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. 5. In Ground Nos.1 .1-4 of the appeal

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance of Rs. 1,19,32,795/- under under Section 14A read with Rule 8D Rule 8D, both under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. 5. In Ground Nos.1 .1-4 of the appeal

M/S G.L.CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/NATIONAL FACE LESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S G.L. Construction Pvt. Ltd, Acit/National Faceless 304, Gokul Arcade B, Subhash Appeal Centre, Road, Near Garware, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 3438 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. N.R. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

disallowance of Rs.12,71,250/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act invoking section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] in relation to the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2022. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading and merchandising of goods and providing