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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts germane to the respective disallowances are identical to the AY 2006-07. 35. As regards disallowance u/s.36(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts germane to the respective disallowances are identical to the AY 2006-07. 35. As regards disallowance u/s.36(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts germane to the respective disallowances are identical to the AY 2006-07. 35. As regards disallowance u/s.36(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts germane to the respective disallowances are identical to the AY 2006-07. 35. As regards disallowance u/s.36(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts germane to the respective disallowances are identical to the AY 2006-07. 35. As regards disallowance u/s.36(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) and disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts germane to the respective disallowances are identical to the AY 2006-07. 35. As regards disallowance u/s.36(1

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)

iii) of the Act being an expenditure or it falls u/s 40(b) of the Act being an statutory allowance claimed by the assessee and therefore does not fall within ambit of ‘expenditure’ as envisaged under Section 14A of the Act ? . The Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No 6870/Mum/2012 vide orders dated 11.03.2015 in assessee firm’s own case, has held

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)

iii) of the Act being an expenditure or it falls u/s 40(b) of the Act being an statutory allowance claimed by the assessee and therefore does not fall within ambit of ‘expenditure’ as envisaged under Section 14A of the Act ? . The Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No 6870/Mum/2012 vide orders dated 11.03.2015 in assessee firm’s own case, has held

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

35. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The annual contribution made by the assessee towards Gratuity and Pension Fund increased due to the amendment in the Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the Pension Regulations, 1995. The RBI vide Circular dated 09.02.2011 based on the request from various Banks gave the option to the Bank

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

35. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The annual contribution made by the assessee towards Gratuity and Pension Fund increased due to the amendment in the Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the Pension Regulations, 1995. The RBI vide Circular dated 09.02.2011 based on the request from various Banks gave the option to the Bank

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

35), 10(35A), 10(36), 10(37) and 10(38) of the Act are similarly worded with phrase “any income by way of” . This is because Chapter III of the Act has the heading “Income which do not form part of total income”. It is therefore, first we have to compute the income following the matching principle which says receipt

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

iii), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act amounting to INR 15,34,55,236 (Page 9 to 18 of the Final Assessment Order) ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. The Hon'ble DRP and the learned AO erred in facts and in law in making disallowance under Section 36(1)(i), Section

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

iii. DCIT vs. Mastek Ltd [(2012) 25 Taxmann.com 133(Guj)] The assessee has stated that the Hon'ble High Court has referred to section 35(3) and not to section 35(2AB)(3) while delivering the above judgment. In this context it is to be stated that expenditure on scientific research for weighted deduction has not only to satisfy

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

iii. DCIT vs. Mastek Ltd. [(2012) 25 Taxmann.com 133(Guj)] M/s. Asian Paints The assessee has stated that the Hon'ble High Court has referred to section 35(3) and not to section 35(2AB)(3) while delivering the above judgment. In this context it is to be stated that expenditure on scientific research for weighted deduction has not only

M/S GENERAL AERODYNAMICS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S General Aerodynamics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer-2(1)(2), Ali Chambers, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Room No. 543, Aayakar Mumbai-400023. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate-400021. Pan No. Aabcg 4629 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Smita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/07/2022

section 36(1)(iii). In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Madras High Madras High Court (2011 TIL 687 Court (2011 TIL 687-HC-MAD-IT) CIT Vs R Mohan wh where in it was held that the assessee is not entitled to claim interest was held

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

1,73,44,734/-, being 200% of Research & Development Expenditure of INR 86,72,367/-, under Section 35(2AB) of the Act while computing income under normal provisions of the Act, the amount of Research & Development Expenditure debited to the Profit & Loss Account was only INR 86,72,367/- out of which deduction for revenue expenditure

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

35. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing provision for privilege leave encashment. For this assessee raised the following Ground No.3: - “3. Provision for privilege leave encashment of Rs.88,00,00,000 41 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that under the law, in a case when loan is given out of mixed funds and the net owned funds of the assessee are more than the borrowed funds, it is reasonable to presume that the loan was given out of own funds. e. Learned