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

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

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

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

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

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, 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

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC-46, 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

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

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

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, 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

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

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

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed under Section 43B. 42. The operative para of the said decision is as under: 6. We have carefully examined the scope and ambit of Section 43B of the Act. In our view, this section has two parts. The first part is that whether the interest paid in addition will at all be deductible under this section

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed under Section 43B. 42. The operative para of the said decision is as under: 6. We have carefully examined the scope and ambit of Section 43B of the Act. In our view, this section has two parts. The first part is that whether the interest paid in addition will at all be deductible under this section

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

Section 43(6) of the Act. Under the block concept once an asset is added to the Block of Assets it loses its identity and the depreciation on a particular asset cannot be worked out separately. Rejecting the aforesaid submission, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance

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

43,595 Disallowance under section 14A @ 1% Disallowance under section 14A @ 1% 1,45,31,436 1,45,31,436 of investments of investments Add: Direct Expenditure Add: Direct Expenditure 740 Disallowance u/s. 14A Disallowance u/s. 14A 1,45,32,176 1,45,32,176 Less: Suo Moto Disallowance Less: Suo Moto Disallowance

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

43(6) of the\nAct have no applicability to the facts of the present case.\n25. As regards the reliance placed by the Revenue on the provisions of\nsection 49(1)(iii)(e) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, it is pertinent to note\nthat these provisions form part of the Chapter dealing with “Capital Gains\"\nand