NEMCHAND J GALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 12, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowing the municipal taxes and deduction u/s 80D, 80IB(4), 80L and the addition on account of alleged unexplained loan creditors, invoking the provision of section

NEMCHAND J GALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 12, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowing the municipal taxes and deduction u/s 80D, 80IB(4), 80L and the addition on account of alleged unexplained loan creditors, invoking the provision of section

NEMCHAND GALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 12, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowing the municipal taxes and deduction u/s 80D, 80IB(4), 80L and the addition on account of alleged unexplained loan creditors, invoking the provision of section

NEMCHAND GALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 12, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowing the municipal taxes and deduction u/s 80D, 80IB(4), 80L and the addition on account of alleged unexplained loan creditors, invoking the provision of section

NEMCHAND J GALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 12, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowing the municipal taxes and deduction u/s 80D, 80IB(4), 80L and the addition on account of alleged unexplained loan creditors, invoking the provision of section

AKSHAYA HOLDINGS PVT LTD,DALIA IND ESTATE, ANDHERI(W),MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

section 14A of Rs. 4.57 crore, such disallowances consist of disallowances under Rule 80D(i)of Rs. 4.54 crore and disallowances

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AKSHAYA HOLDING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

section 14A of Rs. 4.57 crore, such disallowances consist of disallowances under Rule 80D(i)of Rs. 4.54 crore and disallowances

ECL FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Miss Padmavathy S.- A.Y. 2017-18 - A.Y. 2020-21

80D(2)[I] to Rs.2,65,78,512/- without appreciating the facts income only?" 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA), was justified in deleting the addition made to Book Profit computed u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, disregarding the clear provisions under Explanation (1)) to section 115JB

KEYUR S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowed Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 80C, Rs. 8200/- under section 80D and Rs. 15,907/- under section 80D

M/S WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 2(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. (6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule

THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI. vs. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 2(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. (6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule

ACIT CENT. CIR 5(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 2(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. (6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule

M/S WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 2(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. (6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule

ACIT CENTRAL CIR 5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 2(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. (6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 21,08,798/- u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs.65,197/-even when the AO rightly worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per the rule

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Disallowance under section 14A 1,44,377) (1,54,64,845) Total Surplus /(Deficit) from Life Insurance (1,50,45,39,430) Business 38. The above statement furnished is in accordance with the Insurance Act, 1938, therefore, it cannot be stated that assessee returned income is not in accordance with the Insurance Act, 1938. There is no basis

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. S VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

80D(2)(iii) to Rs.1,04,863/-, without appreciating the facts that there is no evidence furnished by the assessee to prove that the borrowed funds on which interest is paid by it, are directly attributed to earning of taxable income only?” 3. The brief fact of the case shows that the Assessee, a private limited company engaged into

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. S VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

80D(2)(iii) to Rs.1,04,863/-, without appreciating the facts that there is no evidence furnished by the assessee to prove that the borrowed funds on which interest is paid by it, are directly attributed to earning of taxable income only?” 3. The brief fact of the case shows that the Assessee, a private limited company engaged into

GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) were not applicable. In defense of his arguments, the ld. AR drew our attention to the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.424/M/2012 (AY-2008-09) dated 7.10.2015, ITA NO.1900/Mum/2011(AY-2006-07) and others, dated 28.8.2014 and ITA Nos.3428/Mum/2013 and 3737/Mum/2013