ACIT - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PROGRESSIVE SHARE BROKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following his own decision in earlier year, confirmed disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned authorised representative of the assessee, before us, has submitted that the Tribunal in appeal relating to the assessment year 2007- 08 vide

KUNAL GOVIND KATARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkunal Govind Kataria Vs. Dcit,Cc-8(1) 2/B, Cenced Apartments Aaykar Bhawan Nr.Bajaj Park, Ambedkar M.K.Road Road, Bandra(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No.Aodpk3994G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 43(5)(e) of the Act, and thus, there is no error in the findings recorded by the Ld. AO in disallowing loss incurred from commodity derivative trading on NMEC, Ahmadabad. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- 8.0 I have considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the appellant, the observations

DCIT CENT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI vs. KUNAL GOVIND KATARIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkunal Govind Kataria Vs. Dcit,Cc-8(1) 2/B, Cenced Apartments Aaykar Bhawan Nr.Bajaj Park, Ambedkar M.K.Road Road, Bandra(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No.Aodpk3994G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 43(5)(e) of the Act, and thus, there is no error in the findings recorded by the Ld. AO in disallowing loss incurred from commodity derivative trading on NMEC, Ahmadabad. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- 8.0 I have considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the appellant, the observations

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

43,090, details of which are provided below. 2. Imputation of interest on the Share application money pending allotment - INR 9,25,35,248 [ Page 3 and 4 of the Final Assessment Order] The learned AO/ the learned TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in facts and in law in imputing the interest on share application money, pending allotment

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

6. After careful consideration of the respective submissions of learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that there is no substance or merit in the preliminary objection raised. In Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd.'s case [1980] 124 ITR 518 (Mad), the Division Bench of this court sustained an objection on behalf of the Revenue to the jurisdiction

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

6. Aggrieved by the reduction in the quantum of Aggrieved by the reduction in the quantum of Aggrieved by the reduction in the quantum of disallowance revenue preferred appeal before the disallowance revenue preferred appeal before the disallowance revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the contention of the Tribunal The Tribunal considered the contention of the assessee

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

6. The Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that when he has given a finding that there was no approval of the JCIT, he ought to have held that Explanation-3 of section 43(1) cannot be invoked as adjustment being nullity in law, disallowance

DCIT 4 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAMSHI SECURITIES P LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-4(1)(1) M/S Dharamshi Securities Limited 6Th Floor, 640, Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ 1073, Quest, Behind Beau Monde Towers M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajabhau Desai Marg, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai – 400 025 Pan No.: Aaacd-3924-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Jha- Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

disallow the same in this year also. 3.2 The assessee submitted that no loss was incurred on transactions in cash segment for daily square-off. The other losses were in derivative segment which were to be treated as normal business loss as per Sec. 43(5)(d) of the Act. As a result, the provision of Sec.73 would not apply

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

6. Before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment made under section 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that in the absence of any incriminating material found against the assessee as a result of search and seizure operation, no addition/disallowance which is subject matter

M/S. CRODA INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

43,67,550/- after making disallowance u/s 35(2AB) of the Act in the sum of Rs 62,90,501/- and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs 35,73,246/-. This assessment was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by treating the order

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

6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed by the assessee and based on the response recomputed the disallowance towards commission paid to those parties. We further notice that for the rest of the parties considering the difficulty in examining the data, the AO has applied 10% as adhoc disallowance and for one party M/s.Talent

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

6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed by the assessee and based on the response recomputed the disallowance towards commission paid to those parties. We further notice that for the rest of the parties considering the difficulty in examining the data, the AO has applied 10% as adhoc disallowance and for one party M/s.Talent

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

6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed by the assessee and based on the response recomputed the disallowance towards commission paid to those parties. We further notice that for the rest of the parties considering the difficulty in examining the data, the AO has applied 10% as adhoc disallowance and for one party M/s.Talent

M/S. DATAMATRIX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5358/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2016-17) Datamatrix Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Acit 504, 5 Th Floor, Sai Arpan, P.G. Circle 9(3)(1), Vora Road, Next To P.G. Vora फनाभ/ Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, School, Mira Road (E), Thane- Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 401107 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacg4096M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri. V.Vidyadhar, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2021

disallowed the differential depreciation claimed of ₹2,07,226/-. In our view, while computing the amount of depreciation allowable for a year, what is to be reduced from the opening WDV is the price for which an asset, comprising with a particular block of assets, is sold during the year. There is no provision to substitute this money payable

JM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

6 ITA No.3654/M/2014 & ITA No.3660/M/2014 M/s. J.M. Financial Services Ltd. recorded by the AO before discarding disallowance suo- moto made by assessee. The Ld. AR in this respect has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ‘Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT’ 328 ITR 81 (Bom). He has further submitted

DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SPS SHARE BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result Revenue fails in this appeal

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowing the loss of Rs.93,63,235/-, the AO has considered the relevant provisions of section 43(5) of the Act and section 2(ac) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. 4. Aggrieved by this finding of the AO the assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A). It was strongly contended that the contracts in foreign currency futures were

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 43(6)(c) of the Act. The adjustment made by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary and without considering the objections. 3. The ground no.1 pertains to the disallowance

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

43,17,563/- as against a disallowance of Rs 2,54,20,159/- mode by the assessee in the return of income by holding that investment in mutual funds of the nature of growth funds do not yield dividend income ignoring the fact that these investments on holding for more than a year yield exempt income." 8. “On the facts