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 of the Act . The Assessing Officer, however, following the findings recorded by his predecessor Officer, however, following the findings recorded by his predecessor Officer, however, following the findings recorded by his predecessor in the assessment for assessment year 2011 in the assessment for assessment year 2011–12, proceeded to 12, proceeded to compute the disallowance in accordance with

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of 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

disallowance of ESOP expenses under section 37(1) of the 3.1 The brief facts qua The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that the issue in dispute are that the assessee debited ₹7,66,75

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] &

disallowance under section 14A. In this case, the Bombay High Court even while remanding the case back to Tribunal for adjudicating afresh observed (relying on its own previous judgment in same assessee's case for a different Assessment Year) that, if assessee possesses sufficient interest free funds as against investment in tax-free securities then, there is a presumption that

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

75 and 85/MUM/2022 dated 24/1/2023 where the learned AO was in appeal against the order of the learned CIT – A deleting the claim under section 201 (1) and interest under section 201 (1A) of the act for not withholding tax under section 195 of the income tax act pertaining to the payment ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys

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

75 and 85/MUM/2022 dated 24/1/2023 where the learned AO was in appeal against the order of the learned CIT – A deleting the claim under section 201 (1) and interest under section 201 (1A) of the act for not withholding tax under section 195 of the income tax act pertaining to the payment ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys

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

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(i) since the own funds of the Assessee were only INR 1355,19,82,325/- [as opposed to INR 12806,13,99,023/- computed by the CIT(A)] and therefore, the CIT(A) erred in arriving at the conclusion that the Assessee had sufficient interest free own funds to make

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 of AJIO marketing expenditure amounted\nto Rs. 79,43,19,538/- after allowing depreciation.\n50. During the proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee made\ndetailed submissions explaining the nature and allowability of\nmarketing expenditure incurred in relation to the AJIO e-\ncommerce platform.\n51. The assessee submitted that the learned NFAC had already\nadjudicated the identical issue

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/:-\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/-\n2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-:\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

75,000 disallowed under section 14A of the Act\nGround no 7- Addition of Rs 92,75,000 disallowed under

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

75,000 disallowed under section 14A of the Act\nGround no 7- Addition of Rs 92,75,000 disallowed under

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating to INR\n11,21,42,029/-:\nSl.No. Name & Country of Tax Residence Status Amount (INR) Note\nRef\n1. Houthoff Buruma, Netherlands Company 8,89,560/- 2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company

ACIT , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD , MUMBAI

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) for Rs.24,25,66,541/- and disallowance\nof expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for Rs.74,75

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

section 40A(3) of the Act. Since a\nsimilar issue has already been decided in assessee's appeal for the assessment\nyear 2016-17, therefore the findings/conclusions rendered therein shall apply\nmutatis mutandis. As a result, ground no.6 raised in assessee's appeal is\nallowed.\n72. The issue arising in ground no.7, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\nenhancement

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

section 40A(3) of the Act. Since a\nsimilar issue has already been decided in assessee's appeal for the assessment\nyear 2016-17, therefore the findings/conclusions rendered therein shall apply\nmutatis mutandis. As a result, ground no.6 raised in assessee's appeal is\nallowed.\n72. The issue arising in ground no.7, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\nenhancement

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

section 40A(3) of the Act. Since a\nsimilar issue has already been decided in assessee's appeal for the assessment\nyear 2016-17, therefore the findings/conclusions rendered therein shall apply\nmutatis mutandis. As a result, ground no.6 raised in assessee's appeal is\nallowed.\n72. The issue arising in ground no.7, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\nenhancement