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

6,72,99,474, after claiming deduction of ` 11,64,44,163, under section 80IA. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3), vide order dated 30th November 2010 disallowing

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

6 In that Circular, the CBDT has clarified that Rule 8D In that Circular, the CBDT has clarified that Rule 8D In that Circular, the CBDT has clarified that Rule 8D read with Section 14A of the Act provides for read with Section 14A of the Act provides for read with Section 14A of the Act provides for Era Capital

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 by issuing notice under section 133(6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed

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 by issuing notice under section 133(6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed

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 by issuing notice under section 133(6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed

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 ance ance under under under section section section 14A 14A 14A read read read with with with Rule Rule Rule 8D 8D 8D at at at ₹17,25,25,167/- (₹15,01,06,025 + 15,01,06,025 + ₹1,16,79,947 + ₹1,07,39,195). 1,07,39,195). 6

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has raised primarily two grounds with sub-grounds. These exhaustive grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) 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

6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has raised primarily two grounds with sub-grounds. These exhaustive grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) 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

6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has raised primarily two grounds with sub-grounds. These exhaustive grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has raised primarily two grounds with sub-grounds. These exhaustive grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) 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

6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has raised primarily two grounds with sub-grounds. These exhaustive grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) 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

6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has raised primarily two grounds with sub-grounds. These exhaustive grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section

INCOME TAX OFFIECER-17(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. SUGARCHEM, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalincome Tax Officer-17(3)(4) M/S. Sugarchem 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Kshamalaya, 3Rd Floor Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Marine Lines Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aayfs3762P Appellant Respondent

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act. Respectfully following the said decision we hold that both the sections, i.e. Section 194C(6

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. 360 ONE PRIME LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for t, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for t, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Asst. Cit Circle-6(1)(2), 360 One Prime Ltd., Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Iifl Centre, Kamala City, Senapati Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcc 3347 E Appellant Respondent

6 117/2015, Hon’ble Delhi High Court Hon’ble Delhi High Court in order dated 25/0 in order dated 25/02/2015 has held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempted income earned by the assessee. exempted income earned by the assessee

DISH TV INDIA LTD vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumardish Tv India Ltd. Fc–19, Firm City, Sector–16A ……………. Appellant Noida 400 063 Pan – Aaaca5478M V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–11(1), Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–16(1), Mumbai V/S Dish Tv India Ltd. 135, Continental Building Dr. A.B. Road, Worli ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaaca5478M

disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act as it is in the nature of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) r/w 16 Dish TV India Ltd. Explanation–2 and 6

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)

disallowance of INR.83,93,835/- made under section 14A of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal before

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)

disallowance of INR.83,93,835/- made under section 14A of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance under section 14A. 6. The CIT(A), with respect to the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) noted that