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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 115VD of the income tax act and same is disallowable and added back to the total income of the assessee. 011. The learned assessing officer further noted that there are certain miscellaneous income which have been arising out of shipping that‟s written back amounting to ₹ 4,273,847 and general average claim of ₹ 637,690

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 115VD of the income tax act and same is disallowable and added back to the total income of the assessee. 011. The learned assessing officer further noted that there are certain miscellaneous income which have been arising out of shipping that‟s written back amounting to ₹ 4,273,847 and general average claim of ₹ 637,690

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

section 36(2) of the IT Act not satisfied and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

section 36(2) of the IT Act not satisfied and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

section 14A of the Act,disallowance was worked out to Rs.\n80,14,11,690/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.79

AURO GOLD JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance out of deduction claimed under section 10A of the Act was on a presumptive/estimate basis. From the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is very much clear that the allegation of the Assessing Officer that no manufacturing activity was carried on by the assessee was found to be baseless as learned Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically stated that the assessee

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

section 14A of the Act,disallowance was worked out to Rs.\n80,14,11,690/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.79

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

section 14A of the Act,disallowance was worked out to Rs.\n80,14,11,690/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.79

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 14A of the Act. 7. Ground No.3(b) raised by the Assessee pertains to disallowance of expenses of INR.2,48,61,690

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

section 145 as it stood prior to amendment 1995 with effect from 1-4-1997 which reads as under:— "Method of accounting-(1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" shall be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee : Provided that in any case

JCIT OSD CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

section 14A of the Act,disallowance was worked out to Rs.\n80,14,11,690/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.79

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 (3) (1), MUMBAI

section 14A of the Act,disallowance was worked out to Rs.\n80,14,11,690/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.79

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section\n40(a)(i) of the of the Act in respect of aggregate professional fee\nof INR 8,17,690

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

disallowed 10% from the expenditure on brand enhancement on the ground that it was allocable to the overseas owner/collaborator. The AO reasoned that any enhancement in the brand presence of the assessee invariably had a fall-out vis-a-vis brand value of the overseas IPR proprietor. The AO also recorded the relevant facts that not all brands which belong

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance of 10% brand enhancement expenses made by the Assessing Officer observing that disallowance made on an entirely artificial and notional basis from the expense otherwise deductible was not justified. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: “6. Regarding Question No.2, during the course of proceedings in the relevant Assessment

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

disallowance of 10% brand enhancement expenses made by the Assessing Officer observing that disallowance made on an entirely artificial and notional basis from the expense otherwise deductible was not justified. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: “6. Regarding Question No.2, during the course of proceedings in the relevant Assessment

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

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that provisions of Section 40(a)(i) and Section 195 of the Act do not get triggered in case the payments made to tax residents of Sweden [at Sl. No 2 of Table in paragraph 5 above] and Spain [at Sl. No 3 & 6 of Table

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that provisions of Section 40(a)(i) and Section 195 of the Act do not get triggered in case the payments made to tax residents of Sweden [at Sl. No 2 of Table in paragraph 5 above] and Spain [at Sl. No 3 & 6 of Table