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

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

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

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

Disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill arising in the books of assessee because of merger ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 of Bank of Rajasthan and Anagram Finance Limited of ₹254,51,40,318/- on consideration of 5th proviso to Section 32(1

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

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

DIPEN KUMARPAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. NFAC- DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

disallowance u/s 143(1) of the Act is justified. He accordingly submitted that order of the Tribunal Act is justified. He accordingly submitted that order of the Tribunal Act is justified. He accordingly submitted that order of the Tribunal (supra) need to be rectified or recall for deciding in the light of the (supra) need to be rectified or recall

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

1) of the Act and 57(iii) of the Act. Section 37 provides for deduction of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively "for the purpose of business" whereas Section 57(iii) provides for deduction only of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively "for the purpose of making or earning such income". "Such income" refers to "income from other sources". The expression

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(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 () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

1)G of the Act. Accordingly, the depreciation allowable to the assessee on Goodwill should have been o (zero). assessee on Goodwill should have been o (zero). 5. A homogeneous reading of the provisions of sections 2(1B). 32 A homogeneous reading of the provisions of sections 2(1B). 32 A homogeneous reading of the provisions of sections

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

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

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

254 (SC)/[2009]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India\nhas held as under:-\n Assessment year 1998-99 1. Section 37(1), read with section 145, of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 Business expenditure Allowablilty of\nWhether expression 'expenditure' as used in section 37 may, in\ncircumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really\na 'loss