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

46 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. However, for the sake of completeness, we proceed to decide the ground. 41. As could be seen, identical was issue raised by the assessee in ground no.10 of its appeal being ITA no.6518/Mum./2017. Following our decision therein, we delete the disallowance made. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 42. In the result

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

disallowance u 45. Having held so, the next question for our consideration Having held so, the next question for our consideration Having held so, the next question for our consideration is whether the following Explanation inserted by is whether the following Explanation inserted by is whether the following Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 in 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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 84,68,874/- 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

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 84,68,874/- 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

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 84,68,874/- 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

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 ()

section 14A(2), the invocation of Rule 8D itself is vitiated, we consider it appropriate to analyse the matter on first principles. The consider it appropriate to analyse the matter on first principles. The consider it appropriate to analyse the matter on first principles. The motu disallowance comprises assessee has explained that the suo assessee has explained that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

46. In Ground No. (v), the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

46. In Ground No. (v), the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

46. In Ground No. (v), the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

46. In Ground No. (v), the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

46. In Ground No. (v), the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

46. In Ground No. (v), the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. 360 ONE PRIME LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for t, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for t, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Asst. Cit Circle-6(1)(2), 360 One Prime Ltd., Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Iifl Centre, Kamala City, Senapati Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcc 3347 E Appellant Respondent

disallowance u/s 14A as per rule 8D? 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition u/s. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition u/s. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition u/s. 14A of the IT Act, while computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance under section 14A 15 ITA 2382 & 2383/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd and Ground no.6 to 8 regarding the TP adjustment raised by the revenue are dismissed. 23. Ground No. 3 and 4 are regarding the depreciation on sample flat. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on building by applying the rate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance under section 14A 15 ITA 2382 & 2383/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd and Ground no.6 to 8 regarding the TP adjustment raised by the revenue are dismissed. 23. Ground No. 3 and 4 are regarding the depreciation on sample flat. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on building by applying the rate

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 115JB of the act 4. The learned assessing officer/DRP has erred in disallowing loan processing fee of ₹ 46,843,401/–. 5. The learned

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 115JB of the act 4. The learned assessing officer/DRP has erred in disallowing loan processing fee of ₹ 46,843,401/–. 5. The learned

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 14 A of ₹ 344,362,109/– and reallocation of the interest expenditure amounting to ₹ 5,670,168/– was made to the returned income of ₹ 46