STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowing the claim of deduction to the extent of Rs.5,84,64,070/- is upheld.‖ 11.6.2 Ld.AR submitted that the claim towards weighted deduction under section 352AB is done on the basis of approval of the R&D facilitity of DSIR. The Ld.AR also brought to our attention that similar view has been held by the co- ordinate bench

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

5A) provides that in case the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the conditions specified Section 35(2AB) of the Act and Rule 6 are satisfied, the Prescribed Authority shall pass in order in writing in Form 3CM. One of the conditions prescribed in Rule 6(7A) for grant to approval for expenditure under Section 35(2AB) is electronically furnishing

M/S. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

disallowed weighted deduction @ 150% on the ground that assessee has failed to furnish copy of agreement with the prescribed authority. It is noticed by us that similar issue arose in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2002–03 and the Tribunal after considering the submissions of the parties vis–a–vis deduction claimed under section 35(2AB), held

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowed were genuine expenses and had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowed were genuine expenses and had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowed were genuine expenses and had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowed were genuine expenses and had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Life Insurance Dcit 3(2)(1), Corporation Of India, Room No.608, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, F&A Department, Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 3Rd Floor, West Wing, New Marine Lines, “Yogakshema”, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(1), M/S. Life Insurance Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Corporation Of India, Aayakar Bhavan, Central Office, M.K. Road, Vs. Yogakshema, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent)

5A) of section 80G, we do not concur with the same. A bare perusal of section 44 would show that, in an unambiguous terms the provisions of section list out the head of income/section it would override for the purpose of computation of income. The non-obstinate clause does not impinge the powers of Assessing Officer to examine deductions claimed

ASST. COMM OF INCOME TAX 3(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Life Insurance Dcit 3(2)(1), Corporation Of India, Room No.608, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, F&A Department, Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 3Rd Floor, West Wing, New Marine Lines, “Yogakshema”, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(1), M/S. Life Insurance Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Corporation Of India, Aayakar Bhavan, Central Office, M.K. Road, Vs. Yogakshema, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent)

5A) of section 80G, we do not concur with the same. A bare perusal of section 44 would show that, in an unambiguous terms the provisions of section list out the head of income/section it would override for the purpose of computation of income. The non-obstinate clause does not impinge the powers of Assessing Officer to examine deductions claimed

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of expenses and income declared in return filed U/s 153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of expenses and income declared in return filed U/s 153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of expenses and income declared in return filed U/s 153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of expenses and income declared in return filed U/s 153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of expenses and income declared in return filed U/s 153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of expenses and income declared in return filed U/s 153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of expenses and income declared in return filed U/s 153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

5A) The prescribed authority shall, if he is satisfied that the conditions provided in this rule and in sub-section (2AB) of section 35 of the Act are fulfilled, pass an order in writing in Form No. 3CM: Provided that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the company before rejecting an application." "(7A) Approval of expenditure

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 2, CUFFE PARADE

5A) The prescribed authority shall, if he is satisfied that the conditions provided in this rule and in sub-section (2AB) of section 35 of the Act are fulfilled, pass an order in writing in Form No. 3CM: Provided that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the company before rejecting an application." "(7A) Approval of expenditure

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

5A) The prescribed authority shall, if he is satisfied that the conditions provided in this rule and in sub-section (2AB) of section 35 of the Act are fulfilled, pass an order in writing in Form No. 3CM: Provided that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the company before rejecting an application." "(7A) Approval of expenditure

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. PAN No. AAACJ 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 DC. CC.46, M/s JSW Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6th floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. PAN No. AAACJ 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year