KUNAL GOVIND KATARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkunal Govind Kataria Vs. Dcit,Cc-8(1) 2/B, Cenced Apartments Aaykar Bhawan Nr.Bajaj Park, Ambedkar M.K.Road Road, Bandra(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No.Aodpk3994G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 43(5)(e) of the Act, and thus, there is no error in the findings recorded by the Ld. AO in disallowing

DCIT CENT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI vs. KUNAL GOVIND KATARIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkunal Govind Kataria Vs. Dcit,Cc-8(1) 2/B, Cenced Apartments Aaykar Bhawan Nr.Bajaj Park, Ambedkar M.K.Road Road, Bandra(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No.Aodpk3994G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 43(5)(e) of the Act, and thus, there is no error in the findings recorded by the Ld. AO in disallowing

ACIT - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PROGRESSIVE SHARE BROKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

disallowance under section 73 of Rs.43,11,377/- on account of treating share trading loss as speculative loss and further in not segregating the assessee’s share arbitrage business in to two segments i.e. cash segment and derivative segment by not giving them separate treatment under the provisions of section 43(5

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

5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, Direct Taxes in Circular No which h which has been relied by the Tribunal in the impugned as been relied by the Tribunal in the impugned order cannot be upheld and the disallowance under order cannot be upheld and the disallowance under order cannot be upheld and the disallowance under 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

5. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act amounting to INR 15,34,55,236 (Page

DCIT 4 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAMSHI SECURITIES P LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-4(1)(1) M/S Dharamshi Securities Limited 6Th Floor, 640, Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ 1073, Quest, Behind Beau Monde Towers M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajabhau Desai Marg, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai – 400 025 Pan No.: Aaacd-3924-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Jha- Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

Section 73(1), disallowed business loss after treating the same as speculation loss. On similar lines, Ld. AO proceeded to disallow the same in this year also. 3.2 The assessee submitted that no loss was incurred on transactions in cash segment for daily square-off. The other losses were in derivative segment which were to be treated as normal business

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

5(2) and section 14 of the Act and thereby importing its meaning into section 54 read with section 45 of the Act. In fact, the words 'in India' are already present in section 54 of the Act when applying it in the case of a non-resident and thus, the new residential house has to be purchased or constructed

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowing the expenditure\non Scientific Research and Development u/s 35(2AB) totaling to Rs.\n4,24,13,526/- for all the three units, on the basis of the auditor's\ncertificate which stated that these expenses are beyond the\nguidelines laid down by DSIR. These guidelines are in contradiction\nwith the provisions of section

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

5, the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Whereas, in grounds no.6, 7, 8 and 9, the assessee has challenged the disallowance

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowing deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act stood merged with Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the Assessee was justified in raising the ground in appeal preferred against the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Learned Authorized Representative

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowing deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act stood merged with Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the Assessee was justified in raising the ground in appeal preferred against the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Learned Authorized Representative

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to be restricted to the amount claimed as exempt. 5. 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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to be restricted to the amount claimed as exempt. 5. The assessee

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to be restricted to the amount claimed as exempt. 5. The assessee

DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SPS SHARE BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result Revenue fails in this appeal

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowing the loss of Rs.93,63,235/-, the AO has considered the relevant provisions of section 43(5) of the Act and section

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 154 cannot be invoked. The CIT(A) held that it becomes crystal clear that the profit for the unit is to be computed u/s 80IA(5) of the Act and after reducing the losses incurred by the same unit in the earlier years even though the same has been set off against income of the earlier years , only then

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 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2015, determining the total income at ₹51,19,60,630/ 29.03.2015, determining the total income at 51,19,60,630/-, after making various additions and disallowances as set out in the making various additions and disallowances as set out in the making various additions and disallowances as set out in the assessment order

JM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 43(5) of the I.T.Act. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and settled legal position, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance