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 and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed. 13 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Disallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2 16. The AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid commission of Rs. 17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return

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 and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed. 13 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Disallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2 16. The AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid commission of Rs. 17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return

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 and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed. 13 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Disallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2 16. The AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid commission of Rs. 17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return

M/S. SIMTOOLS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3) ( EARSTWHILE DCIT- CENT. CIR-42), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

DISALLOWANCE OF SET OFF FOR BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS In the instant case in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2008–09 as mentioned in the assessment order of that year the share holding pattern has undergone sea change in as much as the 100% share holding was possessed by Lodha Developers Ltd. Upto 31–03–2007 has been transferred

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 ()

65,30,638/-. When there is dividend, which is exempt the . When there is dividend, which is exempt the corresponding expenditure has to be disallowed as per Section

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 14A made by AO by Rs. 1,65,517 and thereby holding that a disallowance of Rs. 502,967 is required

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

section\n14A r.w.r 8D and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.\nDisallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2\n16.\nThe AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid\ncommission of Rs.17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return of\nincome has made a disallowance of Rs.50

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

65,50,231 during the year under consideration and made a suo moto disallowance of during the year under consideration and made a suo moto disallowance of during the year under consideration and made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section

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

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

section\n14A r.w.r 8D and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.\n13\nITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16\nBajaj Electricals Limited\nDisallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2\n16.\nThe AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid\ncommission of Rs.17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned