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

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

73,00,000/-\nin respect of interest expenditure:- an amount of\na. by treating the same as capital expenditure for the acquiring\ncontrolling interest in the subsidiary companies,\nb. by not following the Supreme Court decision in the case of Core\nHealth Care Ltd. 298 ITR 194) (SC) (2008);\nc. by observing that the said investment has no connection

JM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

disallowed as per Explanation to section 73. Assessee vide letter dated 19th December. 2011 submitted that the activity of buying

FIDUCIARY EUROMAX GLOBAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

disallowance of Rs.1,16,65,581/- on account of loss in share trading activity by treating the same as speculation loss as per the explanation to section 73

FIDUCIARY EUROMAX GLOBAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

disallowance of Rs.1,16,65,581/- on account of loss in share trading activity by treating the same as speculation loss as per the explanation to section 73

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

73. The first common issue raised in grounds no.1 and 2, in all these appeals relates to the deletion of disallowance of deprecation invoking the provisions of section

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowance against the weighted deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act by the Appellant. 7.2 In disregarding the various other binding judgements of the ITAT and Hon'ble High Court which squarely applies to the Appellant's case with regard to allowability of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) which are in relation to expenses incurred by DSIR

DIWALI CAPITAL & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3107/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3108/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

disallowed the loss claimed from derivative transactions. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by stating that whatever is speculative under section 43(5) of the Act would obviously remain speculative for section 73

DIWALI CAPITAL & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3107/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3108/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

disallowed the loss claimed from derivative transactions. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by stating that whatever is speculative under section 43(5) of the Act would obviously remain speculative for section 73

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

73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

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

73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

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

73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

THE ACIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PRIYASHA MEVEN FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singh

section 73 to treat the share trading loss as of speculation loss and also called upon the assessee to furnish the details of speculative and non speculative expenses. The AO called upon the assessee as to why speculation expenses should not be disallowed

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

disallowance under section 14A\namounting to Rs. 10,73,211/- towards expenditure relatable to\exempt income. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied

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

73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO)\ncompleted the assessment by making the following disallowances:\n(i)\nDisallowance 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)

disallowance under section 14A amounting to Rs. 10,73,211/- towards expenditure relatable to exempt income. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied

SONPHANKHI SHARES & SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee company appeal in ITA No 7068/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 73 of the Act. The ld. DR submitted that matter with respect to disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Act read

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