ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

47) of the Act read with section 53A of Act read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act of Property Act, the capital gain arises in the capital gain arises in AY 2009-10. He also rejected the He also rejected the computation of LTCG computation of LTCG i.e. the sale consideration and cost of i.e. the sale consideration

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 45 read with section 47(iv) of the Act on slump sale of business

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee at ` 2,82,47,295. 23. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, by acquiring the right to collect annuity, the assessee has acquired a valuable commercial right which is an intangible asset within the 40 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. meaning of section

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

section 47(xiib) of the Act, here it is relevant to point out that the department has not proposed to disallow

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

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

47. The learned Departmental Representative has also stated that the issue is also been dealt with in earlier and exactly on the same lines, the directions can be given. 48. We find that the issue is squarely covered and respectfully following and taking a consistent view, we direct the AO to compute the IT A No. 8614/Mum/2011 disallowance by taking

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. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72,254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47

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. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72,254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47

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. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72,254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance can be made u/s 14A while computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB of the computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o Act. The ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee are he ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance can be made u/s 14A while computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB of the computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o Act. The ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee are he ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal

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 ()

disallowed in full under sub disallowed in full under sub-rule (i); and Asia Investments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4529, 6353/MUM/2017, 6209/MUM/2019 (ii) indirect interest expenditure indirect interest expenditure, being interest that cannot be , being interest that cannot be specifically identified or segregated as relating either to taxable specifically identified or segregated as relating either to taxable specifically identified

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts resulting in the & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. disallowance are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The findings on the issue for AY 2006-07 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present AY. This ground of appeal is allowed for parity of reasons. 47

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts resulting in the & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. disallowance are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The findings on the issue for AY 2006-07 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present AY. This ground of appeal is allowed for parity of reasons. 47

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts resulting in the & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. disallowance are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The findings on the issue for AY 2006-07 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present AY. This ground of appeal is allowed for parity of reasons. 47

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts resulting in the & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. disallowance are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The findings on the issue for AY 2006-07 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present AY. This ground of appeal is allowed for parity of reasons. 47

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts resulting in the & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. disallowance are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The findings on the issue for AY 2006-07 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present AY. This ground of appeal is allowed for parity of reasons. 47

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The facts resulting in the & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. disallowance are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. The findings on the issue for AY 2006-07 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present AY. This ground of appeal is allowed for parity of reasons. 47