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

55,00,000.\n6. Post-retirement Medical Benefit:- Rs. 6,37,00,000/-\nThe learned Assessing Officers erred in disallowing the sum of Rs.\n6,37,00,000/-, expenditure in respect of post-retirement medical\nbenefit by considering the same under 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

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 55

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

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

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance of Rs.\n16,55,49,225/- under Section 40(a)(i).\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

Section 14A of the Act provides for Era Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. 10 ITA No. disallowance of expenditure even where the taxpayer in disallowance of expenditure even where the taxpayer in disallowance of expenditure even where the taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income. a particular year has not earned any exempt income a particular year

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 ()

disallowance of ₹10,53,55,857/- under section 14A of the Act under section 14A of the Act . The Assessing

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 to make a disallowance of Rs. 86,81,062/-. On further appeal the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 32,82,975/-. 53. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted that the facts pertaining to the impugned issue are identical to the facts

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 to make a disallowance of Rs. 86,81,062/-. On further appeal the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 32,82,975/-. 53. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted that the facts pertaining to the impugned issue are identical to the facts

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 to make a disallowance of Rs. 86,81,062/-. On further appeal the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 32,82,975/-. 53. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted that the facts pertaining to the impugned issue are identical to the facts

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance of Rs.\n16,55,49,225/- under Section 40(a)(i).\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance of Rs.\n16,55,49,225/- under Section 40(a)(i).\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance of Rs.\n16,55,49,225/- under Section 40(a)(i).\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance of Rs.\n16,55,49,225/- under Section 40(a)(i).\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act. 37. In view of the foregoing discussion, the questions put forth before me are answered in the positive and in favour of the assessee. The decision arrived at by learned Judicial Member is the appropriate view, and I concur with the view adopted by the learned Judicial Member on this issue

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the deprecation only on the issue that the BSE card is non-existent now for the reason due to demutualization or corporatization of BSE Limited, the deemed value will be nil under the specific proviso of section 55

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the deprecation only on the issue that the BSE card is non-existent now for the reason due to demutualization or corporatization of BSE Limited, the deemed value will be nil under the specific proviso of section 55

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the deprecation only on the issue that the BSE card is non-existent now for the reason due to demutualization or corporatization of BSE Limited, the deemed value will be nil under the specific proviso of section 55

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the deprecation only on the issue that the BSE card is non-existent now for the reason due to demutualization or corporatization of BSE Limited, the deemed value will be nil under the specific proviso of section 55

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act. ITA. No.2522/Mum/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 37. In view of the foregoing discussion, the questions put forth before me are answered in the positive and in favour of the assessee. The decision arrived at by learned Judicial Member is the appropriate view, and I concur with the view adopted by the learned Judicial Member