DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

disallowed in-\nterest under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs.54,48,07,533/- as\nagainst the claim of the assessee.\n9. In the course of hearing before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee\npointed out that issue relating to quantum of deduction available to\nthe assessee u/s.36(1)(viii) by taking into consideration interest\nincome on loans

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

disallowed in-\nterest under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs.54,48,07,533/- as\nagainst the claim of the assessee.\n9. In the course of hearing before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee\npointed out that issue relating to quantum of deduction available to\nthe assessee u/s.36(1)(viii) by taking into consideration interest\nincome on loans

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

disallowed in-\nterest under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs.54,48,07,533/- as\nagainst the claim of the assessee.\n9. In the course of hearing before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee\npointed out that issue relating to quantum of deduction available to\nthe assessee u/s.36(1)(viii) by taking into consideration interest\nincome on loans

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

disallowed in-\nterest under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs.54,48,07,533/- as\nagainst the claim of the assessee.\n9. In the course of hearing before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee\npointed out that issue relating to quantum of deduction available to\nthe assessee u/s.36(1)(viii) by taking into consideration interest\nincome on loans

MANHARLAL H. PAREKH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejamanharlal H. Parekh (Huf), B-45, Sea Lord, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai 400005 Pan: Aabhm 9157R ... Appellant Vs.

80E. (1) In computing the total income of an assessee, being an individual, there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, any amount paid by him in the previous year, out of his income chargeable to tax, by way of interest on loan taken by him from any financial institution or any approved

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed interest under\nsection 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs.52,62,28,121 as against the claim of the\nassessee that it has short claimed the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) in the\nreturn of income with notes for Rs. 11,36,88,893. For ease of reference, the\ndeduction claimed by the assessee in the return

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

disallowance, entertainment of expenses, donation interest accrued but not due depreciation etc. He has arrived at a figure of Rs. 11,17,87,315. He has claimed the entire amount as an exemption under section 10B of the Act. The same has been accepted by the department. However, he has derived business income from other sources. The said amount works

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. S.D. CORPORATION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit-3(3)(1) M/S S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Admin Office, S.P. Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020 Colaba, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aadcs4496C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : Shri Dilip Lakhani (Sr. Advisor Of Deloite Haskins & Sell Llp) Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

disallowed . In support of his submission, the ld. DR relied upon the decision of CIT Vs Sterling Foods (supra), Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs CIT (supra), CIT vs. Liberty India (supra), CIT vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT ( supra), CIT vs. Kothari Products Ltd. (supra), CIT vs. Liberty Shoes Ltd. (supra) 5. On the other hand

SANDESH M. MAYEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG. 11(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowance of interest on education loan amounting to ₹ 73460/- in AY 207-08 and ₹ 1,62,687/- in AY 2008-09. 11. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee fairly argued that the CIT(A) has already directed the AO to consider this interest under section 80E

SANDESH M. MAYEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG. 11(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowance of interest on education loan amounting to ₹ 73460/- in AY 207-08 and ₹ 1,62,687/- in AY 2008-09. 11. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee fairly argued that the CIT(A) has already directed the AO to consider this interest under section 80E

QUADRON BUSINESS PARK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 36, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4857/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Quadron Business Part Ltd. Dy. Cit, C.C.36, Plot No.28, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Hinjewadi, Phase-Ii, Pune, "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeca 9058 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Sharma/ Shri Dhruv Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Patankar

section 80E(1) of the Act. Hence, this case is also not applicable. In the case of Sterling Foods (supra), the issue relate to deduction u/s. 80HH for profits on sale of import licence and the cash assistance received against its exports under any scheme of the Government of India. Hence, this case is also not applicable. In the case

M/S KUMUDCHAND D MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

80E, 207, Floor, Matru Vs. Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai- Mandir, Tardeo Road, 400006. Mumbai-400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFK6824G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 01/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

sections, the same profits shall not be allowed as a deduction under any other provision of this Act for the same assessment year and that in any case the deduction shall not exceed the profits and gains of the eligible undertaking or unit or enterprise or business, as the case may be. Even if Section 10A/Section 10B are construed

DY CIT. CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S TRAVECOM GLOBAL P. LTD., BHAYANDER

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

Disallowance of 1. The Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of share premium 1,75,03,410 u/s 56(2)(viib) towards share premium in spite of submitting the valuation report as well as detailed submissions with documentary evidence containing all the necessary reasons considered for the issue of share premium, especially (and among others) with respect to provenance