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

29. In M In M/s. Vijay Industries (supra), decided on 1 March , decided on 1 March 2019, a three judge Bench of this Court held that the 2019, a three judge Bench of this Court held that the 2019, a three judge Bench of this Court held that the provisions of Section 80AB which were introduced by provisions of Section

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

29 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited 10.1 Therefore, to our minds, the addition made by the Assessing Officer by relying upon Section 14 A of the Act, was completely contrary to the provisions of the said Section. 10.2 Mr.Senthil Kumar, who appears for the Revenue, submitted that the Revenue could disallow

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

29 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited 10.1 Therefore, to our minds, the addition made by the Assessing Officer by relying upon Section 14 A of the Act, was completely contrary to the provisions of the said Section. 10.2 Mr.Senthil Kumar, who appears for the Revenue, submitted that the Revenue could disallow

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

29 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited 10.1 Therefore, to our minds, the addition made by the Assessing Officer by relying upon Section 14 A of the Act, was completely contrary to the provisions of the said Section. 10.2 Mr.Senthil Kumar, who appears for the Revenue, submitted that the Revenue could disallow

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 (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 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29

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 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29

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 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29

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 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29

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 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29

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 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29

DISH TV INDIA LTD vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumardish Tv India Ltd. Fc–19, Firm City, Sector–16A ……………. Appellant Noida 400 063 Pan – Aaaca5478M V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–11(1), Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–16(1), Mumbai V/S Dish Tv India Ltd. 135, Continental Building Dr. A.B. Road, Worli ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaaca5478M

disallowance of ` 1,76,29,278, under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) r/w rule

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

29,704, sustained by the learned CIT(A), it was alternatively argued by the learned Counsel that in any case, the disallowance was excessive, keeping in view the facts of the case. It has been argued by the learned Counsel that the disallowance needs to be worked out again, for the reason that no disallowance under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii) had included the same. Thus the Assessing Officer proceeded to compute the disallowance by applying rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) to the tune of Rs.12,88,29

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii) had included the same. Thus the Assessing Officer proceeded to compute the disallowance by applying rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) to the tune of Rs.12,88,29

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

section 14A of Income Tax Act for investments made in tax-free bonds/securities which yield tax-free dividend and interest to Assessee Banks in those situations where, interest free own funds available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments. With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the learned ITAT favoring the assessees. 28. The above conclusion

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance under Section 29,42,64,233 14A 3. Accordingly, the AO had arrived at disallowance of Rs. 29,42,64,233/-. Aggrieved

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance under Section 29,42,64,233 14A 3. Accordingly, the AO had arrived at disallowance of Rs. 29,42,64,233/-. Aggrieved