CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

iii) any company to which this clause applies or any subsidiary company of such company [if the whole of the share capital of such subsidiary company 19 M/s. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. has been held by the parent company or by its nominees throughout the previous year. Explanation.—In its application to an Indian company whose business consists mainly

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

56(1) towards the market value of the shares of Zee News Ltd. received from the holding company at nil consideration, the disallowance of Rs.1,65,85,334/- was made u/s 14A, disallowance of expenses of Rs.2,58,769/- was made u/s 37 of the Act and addition of 2 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 interest on Income Tax refund

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

56(1) towards the market value of the shares of Zee News Ltd. received from the holding company at nil consideration, the disallowance of Rs.1,65,85,334/- was made u/s 14A, disallowance of expenses of Rs.2,58,769/- was made u/s 37 of the Act and addition of 2 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 interest on Income Tax refund

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

2,23,272/- it is contended before us that no disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made in the year since the assessee has not earned any exempt income. In this regard we notice that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has considered a similar issue where it has been held that “8. According to us, this exercise

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

2,23,272/- it is contended before us that no disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made in the year since the assessee has not earned any exempt income. In this regard we notice that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has considered a similar issue where it has been held that “8. According to us, this exercise

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

2,23,272/- it is contended before us that no disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made in the year since the assessee has not earned any exempt income. In this regard we notice that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has considered a similar issue where it has been held that “8. According to us, this exercise

DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. ATEEV V GALA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-17(2), Ateev V. Gala, R. No.217, 02Nd Floor, 575/A, The Orient Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Jamshed Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Matunga Mumbai-400019 Pan No.Aalpg6039N (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

disallowance of Rs.85 lakhs received as gift from HUF without appreciating the fact that HUF does not come under the term ‘group of relatives’ defined u/s 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. During hearing, Shri R.P. Meena, ld. CIT-DR, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by advancing arguments, which is identical

DY CIT. CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S TRAVECOM GLOBAL P. LTD., BHAYANDER

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

Disallowance of 1. The Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of share premium 1,75,03,410 u/s 56(2)(viib) towards share premium in spite of submitting the valuation report as well as detailed submissions with documentary evidence containing all the necessary reasons considered for the issue of share premium, especially (and among others) with respect to provenance

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

Bench: us. 2.

iii) of the Rules sustained by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee is, therefore, allowed and Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Additional Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee 5. By way of Additional Ground No. 1, the Assessee has raised a fresh claim for deduction under Section

JAI JALARAM CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jai Jalaram Co-Operative Credit The Ito Ward 29(1)(5), Society Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Shop No. -2 Ground Floor, Shop Complex, No. -2 Ground Floor, Mulund Mumbai-400051. Siddhivinayak C.H.S. Near Punjab National Bank Zaver Road, Mulund West, Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aaaaj 2603 B Appellant Respondent

disallowed the deduction claimed for the interest earned from Cooperative banks u/s 80P. With regard to the interest or erative banks u/s 80P. With regard to the interest or erative banks u/s 80P. With regard to the interest or dividend income earned from a Co dividend income earned from a Co-operative bank/ Scheduled operative bank/ Scheduled Bank

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. Since the same issue is involved, therefore, our finding given in the aforesaid years will apply equally and accordingly, the addition / disallowance made by the ld.AO are deleted. 56

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. Since the same issue is involved, therefore, our finding given in the aforesaid years will apply equally and accordingly, the addition / disallowance made by the ld.AO are deleted. 56

DCIT 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KILITCH HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

disallowance of Rs.40,03,820 u/s. 14A and addition of Rs.41,94,79,280 u/s. 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 4. Apropos issue of addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act :- During the course of assessment proceedings the AO observed that the assessee issued 4,20,000 shares of Rs.10 each at a premium of Rs.990

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) Threadneedle Investment Fund ICVC Asia Fund Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) 56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) Threadneedle Investment Fund ICVC Asia Fund Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) 56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) Threadneedle Investment Fund ICVC Asia Fund Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) 56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) Threadneedle Investment Fund ICVC Asia Fund Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) 56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) Threadneedle Investment Fund ICVC Asia Fund Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) 56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section