PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

section 40(a)(i) of the Act and tax should have been deducted at source by the assessee firm u/s 195 of the Act or an application should have been made by the assessee firm for no deduction of tax at source u/s 195(2) of the Act . Thus the AO held that these payments to non-resident by assessee

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 37(1), addition under section 68 amounting to Rs.1,61,96,747/-, and addition under section 69A amounting

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 37(1), addition under section 68 amounting to Rs.1,61,96,747/-, and addition under section 69A amounting

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 37(1), addition under section 68 amounting to Rs.1,61,96,747/-, and addition under section 69A amounting

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

747,243,395/–. Thus, according to him \nthe total claim of tax-free income is ₹ 6,000,888,070/– \nthe disallowance under section

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

747,243,395/–. Thus, according to him\nthe total claim of tax-free income is ₹ 6,000,888,070/–\nthe disallowance under section

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

disallowance made by the assessee also u/s 14A could not have been imported in sec.115JB of the Act. Accordingly, following the decision rendered by the Special bench in the case of Vireet Investments P Ltd (supra), we set aside the above said directions given by Ld CIT(A) in both the years. We notice that the assessee itself has made

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

disallowance made by the assessee also u/s 14A could not have been imported in sec.115JB of the Act. Accordingly, following the decision rendered by the Special bench in the case of Vireet Investments P Ltd (supra), we set aside the above said directions given by Ld CIT(A) in both the years. We notice that the assessee itself has made

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

disallowance made by the assessee also u/s 14A could not have been imported in sec.115JB of the Act. Accordingly, following the decision rendered by the Special bench in the case of Vireet Investments P Ltd (supra), we set aside the above said directions given by Ld CIT(A) in both the years. We notice that the assessee itself has made

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

disallowance made by the assessee also u/s 14A could not have been imported in sec.115JB of the Act. Accordingly, following the decision rendered by the Special bench in the case of Vireet Investments P Ltd (supra), we set aside the above said directions given by Ld CIT(A) in both the years. We notice that the assessee itself has made

TATA MOTORS LIMITED(SUCCESSOR TO TML DRIVELINES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: The Learned Cit(Appeals) Assessee Also Gave An Alternative Without Prejudice Working For Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs. 1,00,747/- In This 2 Tata Motors Limited (Successor To Tml Drivelines Ltd.)

747/- in this 2 Tata Motors Limited (Successor to TML Drivelines Ltd.) regard. The learned CIT(A) noted that assessee has earned exempt income and has not made any disallowance under section

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

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)

disallowable for non- deduction of tax at source under section 40 (a) (i) of the act. c The learned CIT – A noted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001 – 02 vide order dated 7 April 2017 and further the orders

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)

disallowable for non- deduction of tax at source under section 40 (a) (i) of the act. c The learned CIT – A noted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001 – 02 vide order dated 7 April 2017 and further the orders

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: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowable for non- deduction of tax at source under section 40 (a) (i) of the act. c The learned CIT – A noted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001 – 02 vide order dated 7 April 2017 and further the orders

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

disallowance could be made. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the amount of Rs.88,290/- from the book profit.” Thus, he submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. was duly considered by Tribunal before taking contrary view in the matter. But Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not accept

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

747 under section\n32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain the\nallowability of additional depreciation so claimed. In response thereto, the\nassessee submitted that as per section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee is\nentitled to claim 20% additional depreciation on any new plant and machinery\nacquired after 31/03/2005. It was further

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

747 under section\n32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain the\nallowability of additional depreciation so claimed. In response thereto, the\nassessee submitted that as per section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee is\nentitled to claim 20% additional depreciation on any new plant and machinery\nacquired after 31/03/2005. It was further