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

5. I have gone through the factual and legal contentions of the appellant in support of its argument that the deduction was claimed under section 35D read with section 37 i.e., both under sections 35D and 37. I agree with the argument of the appellant that the language used in section 35D is so plain and unambiguous that the only

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

5. I have gone through the factual and legal contentions of the appellant in support of its argument that the deduction was claimed under section 35D read with section 37 i.e., both under sections 35D and 37. I agree with the argument of the appellant that the language used in section 35D is so plain and unambiguous that the only

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

5. I have gone through the factual and legal contentions of the appellant in support of its argument that the deduction was claimed under section 35D read with section 37 i.e., both under sections 35D and 37. I agree with the argument of the appellant that the language used in section 35D is so plain and unambiguous that the only

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

5. I have gone through the factual and legal contentions of the appellant in support of its argument that the deduction was claimed under section 35D read with section 37 i.e., both under sections 35D and 37. I agree with the argument of the appellant that the language used in section 35D is so plain and unambiguous that the only

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

5. I have gone through the factual and legal contentions of the appellant in support of its argument that the deduction was claimed under section 35D read with section 37 i.e., both under sections 35D and 37. I agree with the argument of the appellant that the language used in section 35D is so plain and unambiguous that the only

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

5. I have gone through the factual and legal contentions of the appellant in support of its argument that the deduction was claimed under section 35D read with section 37 i.e., both under sections 35D and 37. I agree with the argument of the appellant that the language used in section 35D is so plain and unambiguous that the only

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had disposed off the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 06/04/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act. 2. The Revenue has raised the following ground

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had disposed off the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 06/04/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act. 2. The Revenue has raised the following ground

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

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 and trading

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

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 and trading

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

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 and trading

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

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, Lamps

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

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 36(1)(iii) of theAct on Loan given to subsidiary General Ground 1. erred in confirming the action

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowance to a certain percentage of the total bogus purchase amount and in not upholding the addition of 100% of bogus purchase amount? viii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of La Medica

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowance to a certain percentage of the total bogus purchase amount and in not upholding the addition of 100% of bogus purchase amount? viii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of La Medica

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

section 37, it is not necessary that the loan amount should be exclusively used in the business of the assessee. However, the requirement is that it should be used for the purpose of the business which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself. What is to be seen is that the transfer of borrowed funds