DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the revenue and the assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 & 2018-19 and the appeals of the revenue for AY 2014-15 to 2016- 17 are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the revenue and the assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 & 2018-19 and the appeals of the revenue for AY 2014-15 to 2016- 17 are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under

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 40(a)(i) of the Act and tax should have been deducted at source by the assessee firm u/s 195 of the Act or an application should have been made by the assessee firm for no deduction of tax at source u/s 195(2) of the Act . Thus the AO held that these payments to non-resident by assessee

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 40(a)(i) of the Act and tax should have been deducted at source by the assessee firm u/s 195 of the Act or an application should have been made by the assessee firm for no deduction of tax at source u/s 195(2) of the Act . Thus the AO held that these payments to non-resident by assessee

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

1,05,10,437/- consisting of disallowance towards interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 90,39,789/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs. 17,02,920/-. Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that since the assessee has not earned any exempt income no disallowance under section 14A is warranted. The assessee without prejudice

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

1,05,10,437/- consisting of disallowance towards interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 90,39,789/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs. 17,02,920/-. Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that since the assessee has not earned any exempt income no disallowance under section 14A is warranted. The assessee without prejudice

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

1,05,10,437/- consisting of disallowance towards interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 90,39,789/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs. 17,02,920/-. Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that since the assessee has not earned any exempt income no disallowance under section 14A is warranted. The assessee without prejudice

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

272/- out of disallowance made u/s 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,72,50,751/- relying on the reconciliation documents which were not produced before the Assessing Officer for verification during the assessment proceedings.” 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

272/- out of disallowance made u/s 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,72,50,751/- relying on the reconciliation documents which were not produced before the Assessing Officer for verification during the assessment proceedings.” 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

272/- out of disallowance made u/s 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,72,50,751/- relying on the reconciliation documents which were not produced before the Assessing Officer for verification during the assessment proceedings.” 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

272/- out of disallowance made u/s 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,72,50,751/- relying on the reconciliation documents which were not produced before the Assessing Officer for verification during the assessment proceedings.” 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

272/- out of disallowance made u/s 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,72,50,751/- relying on the reconciliation documents which were not produced before the Assessing Officer for verification during the assessment proceedings.” 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

272/- out of disallowance made u/s 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,72,50,751/- relying on the reconciliation documents which were not produced before the Assessing Officer for verification during the assessment proceedings.” 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee

RUSTOMJEE ASPIREE PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 26(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rustomjee Aspiree Premises Co- Ito Ward 26(2)(5), Op. Soc. Ltd., Room No. 319, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Vs. Ground Floor, Rustomjee Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, ‘G’ Block Aspiree, Cts No. 628, Ai, Pt Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Kurla, Eatern Express Highway, (East), Mumbai-400051. Sion, Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabar 4001 L Appellant Respondent

272 (Bom), after analyzing the relevant provision of Section 80P including Sub analyzing the relevant provision of Section 80P includi ng Sub-section (4) had categorically held that cooperative banks are to be treated as (4) had categorically held that cooperative banks are to be treated as (4) had categorically held that cooperative banks are to be treated as cooperative

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

272, wherein it has been held that no disallowance could be made under the said section where no expenditure had ‘actually’ been incurred by the assessee in relation to earning of the exempt income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court approved the contention raised by the assessee that the term ‘expenditure incurred’ appearing in Sec. 14A(1

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

D E R\n\nPER BENCH:\nThe aforesaid cross appeals have been filed against the\norder dated 09/01/2025, passed Ld. Commissioner of Income\nTax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to\n assessment years 2012-13 to 2021-22.\n2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and is\none

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

D E R\n\nPER BENCH:\n\nThe aforesaid cross appeals have been filed against the\norder dated 09/01/2025, passed Ld. Commissioner of Income\nTax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to\n assessment years 2012-13 to 2021-22.\n2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and is\none

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed against the order dated 09/01/2025, passed Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment years 2012-13 to 2021-22. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and is one of the key promoters