YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

46A of the Act and stated that the case of the assessee do not fall into parameters from (a) to (d) laid down in that Rule. Hence, he rejected the same. Therefore, he held that omission of raising the above ground in the original appeal was willful and hence, it does not pass the test of provision of Section

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

46A of the Act and stated that the case of the assessee do not fall into parameters from (a) to (d) laid down in that Rule. Hence, he rejected the same. Therefore, he held that omission of raising the above ground in the original appeal was willful and hence, it does not pass the test of provision of Section

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

46A of the Act and stated that the case of the assessee do not fall into parameters from (a) to (d) laid down in that Rule. Hence, he rejected the same. Therefore, he held that omission of raising the above ground in the original appeal was willful and hence, it does not pass the test of provision of Section

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

46A of the Act and stated that the case of the assessee do not fall into parameters from (a) to (d) laid down in that Rule. Hence, he rejected the same. Therefore, he held that omission of raising the above ground in the original appeal was willful and hence, it does not pass the test of provision of Section

ACIT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Mbmer & Shri Saktijit Dey

46A. That being the case, the ground no.(vi) raised being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 41 Afcons Infrastructure Limited 56. In ground no.(viii), Department has challenged deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of sales tax liability by applying the provisions of section 43B. 57. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee raised a ground

COX AND KINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

disallowance made under section 14A. Since, we have already decided this issue while disposing off ground Nos. 1 & 2 of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 5440/Mum/2015 in the earlier part of the order, this ground has become infructuous, hence, dismissed. 20. In ground No. 2 the Department has raised the issue of violation of Rule 46A

DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. COX & KINGS (I) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

disallowance made under section 14A. Since, we have already decided this issue while disposing off ground Nos. 1 & 2 of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 5440/Mum/2015 in the earlier part of the order, this ground has become infructuous, hence, dismissed. 20. In ground No. 2 the Department has raised the issue of violation of Rule 46A

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of interest payment when thin capitalization rule is not in force, which is in no way connected to the facts and issue of the instant case? - (Included in 7) 7.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the of capital loss by stating that General Anti

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of interest payment when thin capitalization rule is not in force, which is in no way connected to the facts and issue of the instant case? - (Included in 7) 7.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the of capital loss by stating that General Anti

MANGAL KESHAV SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini, Hon’Blemangal Keshav Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit-4(3)(2), (Erstwhile Known As Mangal Mumbai. Keshav Holdings Ltd.) 501, Heritage Plaza, J.P. Road, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Pan No. Aaecm 6524 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D toRs.40,068/-. 10. The issue No.2 raised by the assessee relates to addition of Rs. 26,33,944/- as business income on account of un-reconciled AIR transactions. 11. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to reconcile income earned

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowing an amount to the extent of Rs. 2,62,42,364 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 ('the Act') treating it as expenditure incurred for earning tax-free income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action

DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN TD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowing an amount to the extent of Rs. 2,62,42,364 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 ('the Act') treating it as expenditure incurred for earning tax-free income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

section 44C of the Act and accordingly, should have allowed the head-office expenses in entirety. 9. 9.1The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of taxability of interest on tax received by the Appellant on the basis that this is an issue of fact which cannot be raised before the CIT(A). 9.2 The learned

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC-47 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance. We uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition for A.Y. 2010-11. 16. Grounds 2 & 2b pertain to the deletion of addition made under section 68 of the I.T. Act and on account of unexplained cash credit (loan) by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

DCIT -CC -8 (4), MUMBAI vs. BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEM LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance. We uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition for A.Y. 2010-11. 16. Grounds 2 & 2b pertain to the deletion of addition made under section 68 of the I.T. Act and on account of unexplained cash credit (loan) by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case