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

disallowance u 45. Having held so, the next question for our consideration Having held so, the next question for our consideration Having held so, the next question for our consideration is whether the following Explanation inserted by is whether the following Explanation inserted by is whether the following Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 in Section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. Therefore, the arguments raised on this issues while addressing the appeal for AY 2006-07 would hold good for the present appeal as well. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 23.1. The ld. Counsel pointed that the solitary ground which requires fresh submissions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. Therefore, the arguments raised on this issues while addressing the appeal for AY 2006-07 would hold good for the present appeal as well. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 23.1. The ld. Counsel pointed that the solitary ground which requires fresh submissions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. Therefore, the arguments raised on this issues while addressing the appeal for AY 2006-07 would hold good for the present appeal as well. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 23.1. The ld. Counsel pointed that the solitary ground which requires fresh submissions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. Therefore, the arguments raised on this issues while addressing the appeal for AY 2006-07 would hold good for the present appeal as well. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 23.1. The ld. Counsel pointed that the solitary ground which requires fresh submissions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. Therefore, the arguments raised on this issues while addressing the appeal for AY 2006-07 would hold good for the present appeal as well. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 23.1. The ld. Counsel pointed that the solitary ground which requires fresh submissions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D are identical to the facts in AY 2006-07. Therefore, the arguments raised on this issues while addressing the appeal for AY 2006-07 would hold good for the present appeal as well. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 23.1. The ld. Counsel pointed that the solitary ground which requires fresh submissions

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Disallowance under Section 14A 357,23,70,000 Disallowance of Interest on Capital Work-In- Progress 19,35,01,258 Disallowance

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

70,706/-. However, subsequently the\nassessee contended that no further disallowance was required\nbeyond the suo motu disallowance. The Assessing Officer rejected\nthis contention and computed total disallowance under section

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENDUS CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jcit (Osd)-14(1)(1), M/S Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, 901, Platina, 9Th Floor, Plot No. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C59, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aabcc 2404 Q Appellant Respondent

70,947, against the CSR expenses should not be against the CSR expenses should not be disallowed. The AO vide disallowed. The AO vide order passed under section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

70,706/-. However, subsequently the assessee contended that no further disallowance was required beyond the suo motu disallowance. The Assessing Officer rejected this contention and computed total disallowance under section

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

70,93,000/- and has claimed exempted u/sec 10(34) of Act and the assessee has suo-moto made disallowance of Rs.87,18,140/- towards earning of exempt income. Whereas, the Assessing Officer on perusal of the financial statements found that the assessee has incurred interest expenditure of 608,57,96,000/- and has not disallowed the proportionate interest expenses

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of investments from which exempt income was actually earned

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance of Rs. 1,19,32,795/- under under Section 14A read with Rule 8D Rule 8D, both under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. 5. In Ground Nos.1 .1-4 of the appeal

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance of Rs. 1,19,32,795/- under under Section 14A read with Rule 8D Rule 8D, both under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. 5. In Ground Nos.1 .1-4 of the appeal

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

70,595/- which were far more than the investment yielding tax-exempt income of INR 3845,57,00,000/- and therefore, no disallowance was warranted in respect of interest cost attributable to earning the exempt income in terms of Section

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

PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

disallowable under section 40 A (3). He further found that cash payment of Rs.14,70,327/- made by the assessee