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

section 115JB of the act of ₹ 1,622,908,043/–. In the normal computation of total income total disallowance of ₹ 424,777,318/– was made. The assessee before us along with the adjustment to the book profit challenged the same. 10. The Ld. Authorised Representative has submitted a chart. accroding to that chart, all the issues in this appeal

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 53,98,087 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 3,92,675 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 57,90,762 Tax on Income at normal rates 17,37,229 Add: Surcharge @7.5% 1,30,292 18,67,521 Add: Education Cess @3% 56,026 Total Tax effects 19,23,546 48

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 53,98,087 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 3,92,675 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 57,90,762 Tax on Income at normal rates 17,37,229 Add: Surcharge @7.5% 1,30,292 18,67,521 Add: Education Cess @3% 56,026 Total Tax effects 19,23,546 48

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 53,98,087 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 3,92,675 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 57,90,762 Tax on Income at normal rates 17,37,229 Add: Surcharge @7.5% 1,30,292 18,67,521 Add: Education Cess @3% 56,026 Total Tax effects 19,23,546 48

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 of the Act. In the absence of such satisfaction, the invocation of Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer, it satisfaction, the invocation of Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer, it satisfaction, the invocation of Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer, it was contended, is void was contended, is void ab-initio. It was submitted that, on this

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the cross appeal filed by the revenue as well as\nassessee stands dismissed

section 48?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

disallowance of INR AYs 2018-19 & 2019-2020 255,34,60,901/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) (b) addition of INR 226,48

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-\ndeduction of tax at source does not arise. The AO is directed to delete the\ndisallowance made in this regard.\nGains in respect of long term capital assets, computed under section 50 of the\nAct – Ground II (2.1 to 2.2)\n13. The assessee while filing the return of income has offered income

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Disallowance of notional Interest of Rs. 48,84,000/- under section 36(1)(iii) of theAct on Loan given to subsidiary

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

section 14A\nGround No. 1 to 14\n(ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 15 to 17\n36.\nThe assessee vide letter dated 04.12.2018 raised the following additional\ngrounds:\n“Additional Ground No. 1: Deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of Employee\nStock Option Plan (ESOP):\n1) On the facts and in the circumstances

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. ()

48,477.16 Optionally Convertible Redeemable Debentures Less: Investment in Share 89 25.47 25.47 Warrants 6 ITA 2382 & 2383/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd Less: Investment in Foreign 1,922.37 1,953.79 Companies* Investments to be considered 51,977.40 58,539.79 for 14A 8. Accordingly, the ld AR submitted that no disallowance under section