UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of shares of\nprivate companies only but not "any property” as mentioned in the\nsection 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The AO further observed that\nexplanation applicable to section 56(2)(viia) is only related to \"fair\nmarket value” as described in the explanation to section 56(2)(vii)\nof the Act, not the other explanations.\nThe

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 ()

2)(iii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer computed disallowance at 0.5% of the average value of Officer computed disallowance at 0.5% of the average value of Officer computed disallowance at 0.5% of the average value of investments towards administrative expenses, which amounted to investments towards administrative expenses, which amounted to investments towards administrative expenses, which amounted

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

section 55(2)(0b) of the Act. 53.9 Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the light of specific provisions of the Act, the depreciation claimed, by. the appellant on non-existent BSE Card is not allowable in FY 2006-07 relevant to AY 2007-08. Such disallowance

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

section 55(2)(0b) of the Act. 53.9 Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the light of specific provisions of the Act, the depreciation claimed, by. the appellant on non-existent BSE Card is not allowable in FY 2006-07 relevant to AY 2007-08. Such disallowance

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

section 55(2)(0b) of the Act. 53.9 Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the light of specific provisions of the Act, the depreciation claimed, by. the appellant on non-existent BSE Card is not allowable in FY 2006-07 relevant to AY 2007-08. Such disallowance

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

section 55(2)(0b) of the Act. 53.9 Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the light of specific provisions of the Act, the depreciation claimed, by. the appellant on non-existent BSE Card is not allowable in FY 2006-07 relevant to AY 2007-08. Such disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

55 ITR 722 (SC) [Appellant has placed reliance on several other case laws as well] ced reliance on several other case laws as well] ced reliance on several other case laws as well] Without prejudice, the Appellant has submitted that even if it is Without prejudice, the Appellant has submitted that even if it is Without prejudice, the Appellant

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

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

2 5. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the disallowance of lease line payment to stock exchanges. The AO took the view that the said amount is nature of technical services in view of the provisions u/s 194J and disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. CIT(A) while passing the order has placed reliance upon the decision

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

55,000 Shri Bhojay Sarvodaya Trust Sarvodaya Trust AABTS8782J 1,00,000 1,00,000 AABTS2637Q 5,00,000 5,00,000 Srimad Rajchandra Adhyatmik Srimad Rajchandra Adhyatmik Satsang Sadhna Kendra Satsang Sadhna Kendra SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN AAAAS1296H 10,00,000 10,00,000 SANSTHA Laxmiben Lalji Furia Charitable Laxmiben Lalji Furia Charitable AAATL0063C 2

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

2(iii) of Rule 8D of Rs.9,87,35,619/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A will be Rs.28,91,73,053/-. 55

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

2(iii) of Rule 8D of Rs.9,87,35,619/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A will be Rs.28,91,73,053/-. 55

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

2(iii) of Rule 8D of Rs.9,87,35,619/-. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section 14A will be Rs.28,91,73,053/-. 55

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowance of direct expenses as provided under Rule 8D(2)(i) and the interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The dispute is with regard to administrative expenses only as prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii). We have noted that the assessee has claimed investment in its group companies for strategic purpose on which no other expenses or administrative expenses

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

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

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

55,09,19,633/- which was claimed to be exempt from tax in the return of income. On verification of the computation of total income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the Assessee had made suo motu disallowance of INR 3.65 Crore under Section 14A of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the aforesaid sou motu disallowance offered

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

2) of the Act. 48 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. 53. This issue is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.6587/Mum./2017. Following our decision therein, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 54. In grounds no.3 and 4, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance made under section