THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: “Explanation 2.— —Where in any previous year, any block of assets is Where in any previous year, any block of assets is transferred

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section. This has been held so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd reported in 93 taxmann.com 32 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that waiver of loan for acquiring capital assets cannot be taxed as a perquisite u/s.28(iv) of the Act as receipt in the hands of the assessee

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

2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32

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

2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32

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

2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

32 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. therefore been computed at Rs. Nil in necordance with the formula prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Further, as the actual administrative expenditure was disallowed by the assessee under sub-clause (i), no further disallowance was warranted under sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

32 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. therefore been computed at Rs. Nil in necordance with the formula prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Further, as the actual administrative expenditure was disallowed by the assessee under sub-clause (i), no further disallowance was warranted under sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 3 & 4 30. Ground No. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue pertains to computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 30.1. Identical ground raised

SUVINO TELEVIDEO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

section 32(2) as\napplicable for assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000.\"\n\nAs seen above, business loss pertaining to Assessment Years 1995-\n96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 will not be allowed to be carried forward. The\ncarry forward of business loss and depreciation loss will be allowed as\nunder:\n\nAsst. Year Business\nloss\nUnabsorbed\nDepreciation\nTime

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

Disallowance (1,45,32,176) (1,45,32,176) Difference Difference - iii) The appellant submitted that the AO iii) The appellant submitted that the AO did not record the mandatory did not record the mandatory satisfaction under Section 14A(2

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

Section 2(15). indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15). 174. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance of Rs. 1,19,32,795/- under under Section 14A read with Rule 8D Rule 8D, both under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. 5. In Ground Nos.1 .1-4 of the appeal

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance of Rs. 1,19,32,795/- under under Section 14A read with Rule 8D Rule 8D, both under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. 5. In Ground Nos.1 .1-4 of the appeal

DCIT-CC-4(2), , MUMBAI vs. BIRLA GROUP HOLDINGS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Cit, Cc-4(2), Central Birla Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Range-4, 1St Floor Industry House, 159 Vs. Room No. 1921, 19Th Floor, Churchgate Reclamation, Air India Building Nariman Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacr 2250 C Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2) which prescribes a methodology for disallowance to be made u/s. 14A." methodology for disallowance to be made u/s. 14A." methodology for disallowance to be made u/s. 14A." 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee a non Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee a non Briefly stated, facts

GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

32 (Mum) (ii) M/s C. Green Cooperative Housing and Society Ltd. Vs. ITO21(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1343/Mum/2017, dated 31.03.2017 (iii) Marvwanjee Cama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITORange-20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income

TATA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2(3), MUMBAI

2) of the Act,\nread with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that\nbefore applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs\nto record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the\nassessee, suo moto disallowance under Section 14A was not\ncorrect. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his\nreturn

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed the claim\nof depreciation made by the assessee in respect of manufacturing contracts\nand supply/maintenance contracts and added the same to the total income of\nthe assessee.\n9. The learned DRP, vide its directions issued under section 144C(5) of the\nAct, rejected the objections filed by the assessee on this issue on the basis\nthat the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4.1 , THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MARYADT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

32,992 the break up of which is as under – (i) Deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a) - Rs. 2,94,38,661/- (ii) Deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) - Rs. 3,50,44,331/- (iii) Deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(c) – Rs.50,000/- 16. The CIT(A) allowed the deductions claimed under section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2