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

34 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 29,31,276/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 1,07,54,506/- 46. On further appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under 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

34 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 29,31,276/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 1,07,54,506/- 46. On further appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under 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

34 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 29,31,276/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 1,07,54,506/- 46. On further appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under section

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 ()

disallowance under section under section 14 A of the Act could be invoked in the cases where 14 A of the Act could be invoked in the cases where Asia Investments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4529, 6353/MUM/2017, 6209/MUM/2019 exempt income was earned from shares held as "trading assets" or exempt income was earned from shares held as "trading assets

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

34. Insofar as the other two issues are concerned i.e. disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

34. Insofar as the other two issues are concerned i.e. disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

34. Insofar as the other two issues are concerned i.e. disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

34. Insofar as the other two issues are concerned i.e. disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

34. Insofar as the other two issues are concerned i.e. disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

34. Insofar as the other two issues are concerned i.e. disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

34), and 10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

34), and 10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

34), and 10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

34), and 10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section

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)

Disallowance under section 14A of the Act in respect of dividend income exempt under section 10(34) of the Act 5. erred

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\n14A r.w.r 8D and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.\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 of\nincome has made a disallowance of Rs.50

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] &

disallowance under section 14 A of the act. This issue has been dealt with by the learned assessing officer at paragraph number [7] of assessment order. In fact the assessee has claimed the exemption under section 10 of interest on tax-free bonds of ₹ 86,484,920/– under section 10 (15) (iv) (h), interest on foreign currency loan approved

JM FINANCIAL INDIA FUND-SCHEME B,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjm Financial India Fund-Scheme Ito - 17(2)(1) Room No. 123-B, 1St Floor, B, 141, Maker Chambers Iii, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabtj0401F Appellant Respondent

disallowances/ denial of exemption under section 10 (23FB) held that investment made by assessee in mutual funds in line with SEBI (VCF) Regulation and the same is not a non-compliance of SEBI (VCF) Regulation, therefore, assessee is entitled for exemption. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee in the present appeal