STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowed. v. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35 (2AB) of the act at the rate of 200% of such expenditure incurred of ₹ 627,182,992 (deduction claimed of ₹ 1,254

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 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72,254

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 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72,254

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 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72,254

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by the authorities below for the following reasons: (i) The investments in shares of subsidiary is not for profit or return. The only benefit assessee would derive is dividend income. Hence, expenditures is capital in nature; (ii) The assessee has made investment in shares of subsidiary engaged in rail transportation, a new line of activity for the assessee

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by the authorities below for the following reasons: (i) The investments in shares of subsidiary is not for profit or return. The only benefit assessee would derive is dividend income. Hence, expenditures is capital in nature; (ii) The assessee has made investment in shares of subsidiary engaged in rail transportation, a new line of activity for the assessee

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by the authorities below for the following reasons: (i) The investments in shares of subsidiary is not for profit or return. The only benefit assessee would derive is dividend income. Hence, expenditures is capital in nature; (ii) The assessee has made investment in shares of subsidiary engaged in rail transportation, a new line of activity for the assessee

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by the authorities below for the following reasons: (i) The investments in shares of subsidiary is not for profit or return. The only benefit assessee would derive is dividend income. Hence, expenditures is capital in nature; (ii) The assessee has made investment in shares of subsidiary engaged in rail transportation, a new line of activity for the assessee

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by the authorities below for the following reasons: (i) The investments in shares of subsidiary is not for profit or return. The only benefit assessee would derive is dividend income. Hence, expenditures is capital in nature; (ii) The assessee has made investment in shares of subsidiary engaged in rail transportation, a new line of activity for the assessee

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by the authorities below for the following reasons: (i) The investments in shares of subsidiary is not for profit or return. The only benefit assessee would derive is dividend income. Hence, expenditures is capital in nature; (ii) The assessee has made investment in shares of subsidiary engaged in rail transportation, a new line of activity for the assessee

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 14A r.w.r. 8D\n- Rs.1,19,07,328/-\n(ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP\nRs.\n7,35,861/-\n(iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses\nRs.\n7,50,558/-\n(iv) Difference in TDS information\nRs.\n72,254

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 14A r.w.r. 8D\n- Rs.1,19,07,328/-\n(ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP\nRs.\n7,35,861/-\n(iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses\nRs.\n7,50,558/-\n(iv) Difference in TDS information\nRs.\n72,254

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make an amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, however, allowed the department's appeal. In the Supreme Court

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make an amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, however, allowed the department's appeal. In the Supreme Court

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make an amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, however, allowed the department's appeal. In the Supreme Court

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make an amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, however, allowed the department's appeal. In the Supreme Court

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make an amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, however, allowed the department's appeal. In the Supreme Court

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make an amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, however, allowed the department's appeal. In the Supreme Court

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

section 28 of the Act, Revenue ought to have taxed the broken Period interest received but at the same time ought to have allowed deduction for the broken period interest paid. 21. As already noticed above, this decision of the Bombay High Court has found favour with the Supreme Court in Citibank NA (supra) where Supreme Court agreed with

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also