DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section

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\n14A r.w.r 8D and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.\n13\nITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16\nBajaj Electricals Limited\nDisallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2\n16.\nThe AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid\ncommission of Rs.17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/:-\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/-\n2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-:\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-:\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. FOODS & INNS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Foods & Inns Ltd. Acit, Circle 10(2) Punjabwadi, Sion Trombay Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Vs. Road, Deonar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400088 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacf0521C Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowed `18,86,195/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and `17,38,275/- for A.Y. 2010-11. On appeal

ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. FOODS & INNS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Foods & Inns Ltd. Acit, Circle 10(2) Punjabwadi, Sion Trombay Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Vs. Road, Deonar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400088 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacf0521C Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowed `18,86,195/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and `17,38,275/- for A.Y. 2010-11. On appeal

FOODS AND INNS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Foods & Inns Ltd. Acit, Circle 10(2) Punjabwadi, Sion Trombay Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Vs. Road, Deonar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400088 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacf0521C Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowed `18,86,195/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and `17,38,275/- for A.Y. 2010-11. On appeal

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

275(SC). The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed that the Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.3033/Mum/2012(supra) had decided this issue in favour of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the findings of CIT(A) in deleting the addition by following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. The Co- ordinate

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

275(SC). The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed that the Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.3033/Mum/2012(supra) had decided this issue in favour of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the findings of CIT(A) in deleting the addition by following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. The Co- ordinate

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE LD. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ ITO, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

disallowance under section 40 (a) (ia) of ₹ 47,01,75,198 and transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 11,193,854 was made determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 495,275

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 under section 14 A read with rule 8D (2) (ii) was determined at ₹ 205,098,852/– out of the total interest expenses is by the assessee amounting to ₹ 1,536,389,275

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 under section 14 A read with rule 8D (2) (ii) was determined at ₹ 205,098,852/– out of the total interest expenses is by the assessee amounting to ₹ 1,536,389,275

FIDUCIARY SHARES & STOCKS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfiduciary Shares & Stock P. Ltd. Acit, Circle 4(2) Unit No. T7B, 5Th Floor, Phoenix Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road House, Block No. 2, Phoenix Mills Vs. Mumbai 400020 Compound, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf9759N Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Explanation to section 73 of the Act and by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prasad Agents (P) Ltd. in 333 ITR 275

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

disallowance made\nunder section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. Departmental Representative\nhas not been able to distinguish the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of\nthe Tribunal on this issue in immediately preceding Assessment Year in\nassessee's case. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following the\norder of Tribunal in assessee's case

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowances made in MR construction raised by way of ground No 2, 4 and 7 are not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing under the instruction of the assessee. Accordingly, these three issues are dismissed as not pressed. 43 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 52. The next two issues

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowances made in MR construction raised by way of ground No 2, 4 and 7 are not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing under the instruction of the assessee. Accordingly, these three issues are dismissed as not pressed. 43 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 52. The next two issues