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

disallowance of AJIO marketing expenditure amounted\nto Rs. 79,43,19,538/- after allowing depreciation.\n50. During the proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee made\ndetailed submissions explaining the nature and allowability of\nmarketing expenditure incurred in relation to the AJIO e-\ncommerce platform.\n51. The assessee submitted that the learned NFAC had already\nadjudicated the identical issue

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

section 14-A. 4. The Appellants crave leave to add, amend alter and / or vary any of the grounds at the time or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The Appellants therefore pray that disallowance of Rs. 15,36,264

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

section 14-A. 4. The Appellants crave leave to add, amend alter and / or vary any of the grounds at the time or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The Appellants therefore pray that disallowance of Rs. 15,36,264

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)

disallowance of AJIO marketing expenditure amounted to Rs. 79,43,19,538/- after allowing depreciation. 50. During the proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee made detailed submissions explaining the nature and allowability of marketing expenditure incurred in relation to the AJIO e- commerce platform. 51. The assessee submitted that the learned NFAC had already adjudicated the identical issue

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The issue of interest on fixed deposits was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 143(3)", "Section 80IAB", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 153(3)", "Section 153(5)", "Section 254", "Section 250", "Section 260", "Section 262", "Section

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act are allowed with above directions. 034. Ground number 9 of the appeal is with respect to the taxation of the long-term capital gain at the rate of 20% as against the current rate of 10% while passing the assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144C

DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act are allowed with above directions. 034. Ground number 9 of the appeal is with respect to the taxation of the long-term capital gain at the rate of 20% as against the current rate of 10% while passing the assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144C

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

disallowance merely on the basis of surmises is not sustainable. So we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No.14a, 14b & 14c in ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue’s appeal are decided against the Revenue. ITA No.521/M/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 of Assessee’s appeal & ITA No.7498/M/2018

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

disallowance merely on the basis of surmises is not sustainable. So we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No.14a, 14b & 14c in ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue’s appeal are decided against the Revenue. ITA No.521/M/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 of Assessee’s appeal & ITA No.7498/M/2018

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

disallowance merely on the basis of surmises is not sustainable. So we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No.14a, 14b & 14c in ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue’s appeal are decided against the Revenue. ITA No.521/M/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 of Assessee’s appeal & ITA No.7498/M/2018

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

disallowance merely on the basis of surmises is not sustainable. So we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No.14a, 14b & 14c in ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue’s appeal are decided against the Revenue. ITA No.521/M/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 of Assessee’s appeal & ITA No.7498/M/2018

M/S GODREJ INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Godrej Investments Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 14(1)(2) M/S. Kalyaniwall & Mistry Llp Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Esplande House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai - 400020 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaacg1395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Farrokh Irani Department By : Shri Ambuselvam

disallowed as administrative expenses under Section 14A of the Act. 13 M/s. Godrej Investments Pvt. Ltd., vi) The Appellant Company, inter alia, relies on the following decisions to contend that any adhoc allocation of expenditure to the earning of dividend income is not justified: (a) CIT V/s. Mahendra Sobhagchand Shah-203 ITR, pg. 178 (Bom) (b) CIT V/s. United Collieries

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

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

disallowance merely on the\nbasis of surmises is not sustainable. So we find no illegality or\nperversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A),\nhence ground No.14a, 14b & 14c in ITA No.798/M/2019 for\nA.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue's appeal are decided against the\nRevenue.\nITA No.521/M/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 of Assessee's appeal &\nITA No.7498/M/2018

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

SECTION 145A – UNUTILISED CENVAT CREDIT OF RS.3,51,28,100/-. 64. This ground was not pressed by Ld.AR at the time of hearing. This is reckoned as a statement made from the Bar and hence, dismissed as not pressed. GROUND 15 : SHORT CREDIT OF TDS OF RS.11,17,74,514/- 65. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee challenging

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR -2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

SECTION 145A – UNUTILISED CENVAT CREDIT OF RS.3,51,28,100/-. 64. This ground was not pressed by Ld.AR at the time of hearing. This is reckoned as a statement made from the Bar and hence, dismissed as not pressed. GROUND 15 : SHORT CREDIT OF TDS OF RS.11,17,74,514/- 65. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee challenging

ESSEL PROPACK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhessel Propack Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Top Floor, Times Tower, Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaace 1568L Appellant Respondednt

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii). In the result this grounds of appeal is allowed. 21. Ground No. 4 relates to addition on account of CENVAT credit in valuation of closing stock. The learned AR of the assessee submits that the assessee follows exclusive method of accounting wherein purchase, sale, stock are recorded exclusive of indirect taxes. However, the Income