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

30% of same is disallowable under section 40a (ia) of the act, accordingly ₹ 8,940,897/– being 30% of ₹ 29,802,989 was disallowed

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

disallow assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act by referring to incriminating material which, in reality, never existed. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue of validity of assessment made under section 153A of the Act. Accordingly, we hold 30

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

sections 30 to 36 of the IT Act are allowable. T to 36 of the IT Act are allowable. Thus, a position hus, a position emerges that the intent of the Legislature was not to emerges that the intent of the Legislature was not to emerges that the intent of the Legislature was not to blankly disallow

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

30. In In In conclusion, conclusion, conclusion, we we we therefore, therefore, therefore, hold hold hold that that that the the the amendment which was brought by Parliament to the amendment which was brought by Parliament to the amendment which was brought by Parliament to the Explanation to Section 73 by the Finance (No 2) Act Explanation to Section

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 53,98,087 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 3,92,675 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 57,90,762 Tax on Income at normal rates 17,37,229 Add: Surcharge @7.5% 1,30

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 53,98,087 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 3,92,675 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 57,90,762 Tax on Income at normal rates 17,37,229 Add: Surcharge @7.5% 1,30

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 53,98,087 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 3,92,675 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 57,90,762 Tax on Income at normal rates 17,37,229 Add: Surcharge @7.5% 1,30

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 ()

30,638/-. When there is dividend, which is exempt the . When there is dividend, which is exempt the corresponding expenditure has to be disallowed as per Section

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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that

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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that

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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that

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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that

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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that

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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed 30% of the provision under section 40(a)(ia) and in\nentirety under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5.\nThe

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 of the Act, (c) Disallowance of INR.98,30,093/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

30,939 Average Average Investment 1,45,31,43,595 1,45,31,43,595 Disallowance under section 14A @ 1% Disallowance

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), 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 14A\n- Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure\nTotal Addition in dispute before the Tribunal\nTax on Income at normal rates\nAdd: Surcharge @7.5%\nAdd: Education Cess @3%\nTotal Tax effects\nAmount – Rs.\n53,98,087\n3,92,675\n57,90,762\n17,37,229\n1,30