D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 115JB of the Act. The assessee challenged the aforesaid disallowance before the first appellate authority. 42 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. 28

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

section 14A of the Act. While computing the above disallowance, the average cost of total capital employed has been applied to total investments generating exempt income. The Assessing Officer has relied upon the judgment of his predecessor for preceding year while deciding the issue. 22. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record we find that

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

disallowance u 45. Having held so, the next question for our consideration Having held so, the next question for our consideration Having held so, the next question for our consideration is whether the following Explanation inserted by is whether the following Explanation inserted by is whether the following Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 in Section

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

section 35 (2AB) of the act of disallowance of ₹ 175,478,992/–, following the CBDT notification number 29/2016 dated 28

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowance offered by the assessee of Rs. 34,215/- and treated the receipt of shares of United Phosphorus Ltd (UPL) and Uniphos Enterprises Ltd (UEL), received without consideration as income of the assessee under section 28

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 39,58,065 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 54,83,149 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 94,41,214 Tax on Income at normal rates 28

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 39,58,065 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 54,83,149 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 94,41,214 Tax on Income at normal rates 28

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 39,58,065 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 54,83,149 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 94,41,214 Tax on Income at normal rates 28

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)

disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and therefore, the proviso to section 28(v) is not applicable

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)

disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and therefore, the proviso to section 28(v) is not applicable

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

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ARSHIYA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7177 & 7178/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2010–11) M/S Arshiya Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of 302, Level–3, Ceejay House, Income, Circle-21(2)(5) F–Block, Shiv Sagar Estate,Dr. Room No. 116, 1 St Floor, बनाम/ Annie Besant Road, Worli, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 012 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaaci2679A अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Navnit Choudhary, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Dr सुनवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 घोर्णा की िारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2020 आदेश / O R D E R शक्तिजीि डे, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Saktijit Dey, Jm:

Disallowance under section 28 of `4,40,351/. (ii) Disallowance under section 69C of `4,40,351/- (iii) disallowance under