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 - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72

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 - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72

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 - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72

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 ()

section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made where no exempt income was received by the appellant 8D can be made where no exempt income was received by the appellant 8D can be made where no exempt income was received by the appellant during the year under consideration. during the year under consideration. 6. On the facts

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

section 28 of the Act, Revenue ought to have taxed the broken Period interest received but at the same time ought to have allowed deduction for the broken period interest paid. 21. As already noticed above, this decision of the Bombay High Court has found favour with the Supreme Court in Citibank NA (supra) where Supreme Court agreed with

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

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

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

disallowed under section 40 (a) (i) of the act." 050. The learned authorized representative referred to each of the payment and submitted that all the parties are based out of Singapore. The services rendered by them are in the nature of architectural/landscape design and layout, interior designing and lighting services provided by the vendor's while proceeding with the development

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

disallowed under section 40 (a) (i) of the act." 050. The learned authorized representative referred to each of the payment and submitted that all the parties are based out of Singapore. The services rendered by them are in the nature of architectural/landscape design and layout, interior designing and lighting services provided by the vendor's while proceeding with the development

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 14A(2) of the Act without coming to an objective satisfaction based on the accounts of the appellant that the disallowance made in the return of income was incorrect, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the said disallowance of Rs 6,72

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)

disallowance of AJIO marketing expenditure amounted to Rs. 79,43,19,538/- after allowing depreciation. 50. During the proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee made detailed submissions explaining the nature and allowability of marketing expenditure incurred in relation to the AJIO e- commerce platform. 51. The assessee submitted that the learned NFAC had already adjudicated the identical issue

ACIT , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD , MUMBAI

section 115JB of the Act as held by the Ld.\nCIT(A) in this case, it makes the provisions of law in clause (f) in Explanation 1 in\nSection 115JB of the Act.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was\nnot justified in directing

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

72 or sub-section (1) or subsection (3) of section 74 in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking was permitted to be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years. 21. It is in this background the Finance Act, 2003, was introduced by inserting the words

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

section 37, it is not necessary that the loan amount should be exclusively used in the business of the assessee. However, the requirement is that it should be used for the purpose of the business which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself. What is to be seen is that the transfer of borrowed funds

ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. FOODS & INNS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Foods & Inns Ltd. Acit, Circle 10(2) Punjabwadi, Sion Trombay Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Vs. Road, Deonar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400088 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacf0521C Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D; specifically when the disallowance is far in excess of the exempt dividend income earned in the year under consideration. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh

FOODS AND INNS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Foods & Inns Ltd. Acit, Circle 10(2) Punjabwadi, Sion Trombay Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Vs. Road, Deonar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400088 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacf0521C Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D; specifically when the disallowance is far in excess of the exempt dividend income earned in the year under consideration. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh

ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. FOODS & INNS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Foods & Inns Ltd. Acit, Circle 10(2) Punjabwadi, Sion Trombay Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Vs. Road, Deonar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400088 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacf0521C Appellant Respondent

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D; specifically when the disallowance is far in excess of the exempt dividend income earned in the year under consideration. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh