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

72A(4)", "Section 32(1)", "Section 115JB", "Section 10(38)", "Section 234B" ], "issues": "The primary issues involved were the validity of disallowances

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

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

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

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 (1) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

disallowance under Section 14A was directed to be recomputed, excluding certain investments. The appeals concerning set-off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation were allowed for statistical purposes. Issues related to book profits were deemed academic and dismissed. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["14A", "8D", "72A

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

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

disallowed the business loss and unabsorbed depreciation attributable to the Demerged Undertaking while computing the assessed income. In appeal before the CIT(A), the ground raised by the Assessee in relation to set off of the said business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was dismissed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 72A

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

EMBIO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal for Ay 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhembio Limited Acit-15(1)(2), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Embio Limited Acit-15(1)(1), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Respondent By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

section 72A are applicable in A Y 2012-13 when the conditions as laid down U/S 72A(2)(iii) r.w rule 9C are not fulfilled. 2. The Learned AO erred in disallowing

CARGOTEC INDIA P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2346/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 Cargotec India Pvt. Ltd. Acit 10(3), “Kesar Solitare”, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Office Nos. 301-306, Plot No.5, Vs Mumbai-400020 Sector No.19, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan:Aabch8289A (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved (Ar) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Ms. Radha Katyal Narang (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27- 06 -2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2016

72A(3) and bring to tax, the deemed income in the hands of appellant. Disallowance in the hands of CMIPL (5). The Learned Commissioner (appeals) erred in confirming the action of landed assessing officer of not allowing deduction for the amount of Rs. 90,35,825/- disallowed under section

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

section 72A(2) for setting off of unobserved depreciation were not satisfied in the case . In assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer disallowed

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 37(1) of the Act. It is trite that assessment proceedings before taxing authority are to assess correct tax liability. However, in the present case, the AO as well as learned DRP did not entertain the claim of the assessee in view of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), without going into the merits

ALSTOM INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri G. Manjnatha

disallowed. In response, it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee has claimed the deduction in terms of section 35DDA of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee. He observed, though the assessee had claimed deduction under section 35DDA of the Act towards VRS expenses

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n21\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that

SIPRA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of the claim of losses by restricting the losses at 84.5% on account of assets being retained by assessee i.e. proportionate allowance of losses by invoking 2 ITA No. 7314/Mum/2018-M/s Sipra Engineers Pvt. Ltd. the provisions of section 72A

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n20\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n20\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that