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 - Ground No. 1 to 15 (ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18 (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenditure - Ground No. 19 to 22 50. The assessee vide letter dated 04.12.2018 raised the following additional grounds: “Additional Ground No. 1: Deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP

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 - Ground No. 1 to 15 (ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18 (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenditure - Ground No. 19 to 22 50. The assessee vide letter dated 04.12.2018 raised the following additional grounds: “Additional Ground No. 1: Deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP

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 - Ground No. 1 to 15 (ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18 (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenditure - Ground No. 19 to 22 50. The assessee vide letter dated 04.12.2018 raised the following additional grounds: “Additional Ground No. 1: Deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowed in full under sub disallowed in full under sub-rule (i); and Asia Investments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4529, 6353/MUM/2017, 6209/MUM/2019 (ii) indirect interest expenditure indirect interest expenditure, being interest that cannot be , being interest that cannot be specifically identified or segregated as relating either to taxable specifically identified or segregated as relating either to taxable specifically identified

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts in respect of both the above disallowances & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The disallowances have been made for identical reasons in the impugned AY as well. 27

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts in respect of both the above disallowances & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The disallowances have been made for identical reasons in the impugned AY as well. 27

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts in respect of both the above disallowances & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The disallowances have been made for identical reasons in the impugned AY as well. 27

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts in respect of both the above disallowances & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The disallowances have been made for identical reasons in the impugned AY as well. 27

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts in respect of both the above disallowances & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The disallowances have been made for identical reasons in the impugned AY as well. 27

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts in respect of both the above disallowances & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The disallowances have been made for identical reasons in the impugned AY as well. 27

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 14A should be deleted. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of disallowing an amount of Rs. 10,27

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

27,786/- under section 14A of the Act while computing taxable income under normal provision of the Act and under section 11 5JB of the Act; (iii) Without prejudice to what is stated in (ii) above, to restrict the disallowance

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

27,786/- under section 14A of the Act while computing taxable income under normal provision of the Act and under section 11 5JB of the Act; (iii) Without prejudice to what is stated in (ii) above, to restrict the disallowance

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

27,786/- under section 14A of the Act while computing taxable income under normal provision of the Act and under section 11 5JB of the Act; (iii) Without prejudice to what is stated in (ii) above, to restrict the disallowance

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

Section 10(34) of the Act. Assessee disallowed a sum of ₹ 9,27,255/- under Section 14A of the Act. Learned

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

Section 10(34) of the Act. Assessee disallowed a sum of ₹ 9,27,255/- under Section 14A of the Act. Learned

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

Section 10(34) of the Act. Assessee disallowed a sum of ₹ 9,27,255/- under Section 14A of the Act. Learned

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

Section 10(34) of the Act. Assessee disallowed a sum of ₹ 9,27,255/- under Section 14A of the Act. Learned