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

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

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

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

250 of the Act rectifying order, dated 19/03/2019,\npassed by the CIT(A).\n2.2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.\n3195/Mum/2019:\n\"1. Disallowance under Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D.\nThe Appellant submits that on the facts and in the circumstances of\nthe case and true interpretation of the provisions of Section

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

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

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"] in relation to the assessment\nframed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with\nsection 144B of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2022.\nFacts of the Case\n2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of\ntrading and merchandising of goods

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

6,65,50,231 (ii) A working for the same suo moto disallowance computed was submitted (ii) A working for the same suo moto disallowance computed was submitted (ii) A working for the same suo moto disallowance computed was submitted which is reproduced as under: which is reproduced as under: Particulars Particulars Amount Amount JUHU BEACH RESORT LTD JUHU BEACH

ORANGE FISH ENTERTAINMENT PRVITE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of on account of Provision for License Fees. The 4 Company has made provision as Provision for License Fees. The 4 Company has made provision as Provision for License Fees. The 4 Company has made provision as per consistently followed accounting policy. per consistently followed accounting policy. 2. The learned Commissioner

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

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

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

Bench: us. 2.

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 under Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D. The Appellant submits that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and true interpretation of the provisions of Section

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

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

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 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also on merit invoking section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also on merit invoking section