DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI , MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

disallowed.” 6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non genuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if the holding period is not covered by section 94(7

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands\ndismissed

disallowed.\n6.13 Thus, it is clear that the loss incurred cannot be held as non\ngenuine merely because of issue of dividend by the JM Financial fund if\nthe holding period is not covered by section 94(7

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

94,18,763, under section 14A of the Act r/w rule 8D of the Rules. 21. The DRP vide directions dated 30-9-2019, inter-alia, rejected the objections filed by the assessee. The DRP, however, directed the Assessing Officer to allow suo- motu disallowance of Rs. 46,77,100, made by the assessee under section

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

7,50,568/- claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income for the reason that the said expenditure pertain to earlier AY. The ld. AR in this regard submitted that the lower authorities have not questioned the genuineness of the expenditure and that the same is incurred for the purpose of business and that only reason for denial

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

7,50,568/- claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income for the reason that the said expenditure pertain to earlier AY. The ld. AR in this regard submitted that the lower authorities have not questioned the genuineness of the expenditure and that the same is incurred for the purpose of business and that only reason for denial

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

7,50,568/- claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income for the reason that the said expenditure pertain to earlier AY. The ld. AR in this regard submitted that the lower authorities have not questioned the genuineness of the expenditure and that the same is incurred for the purpose of business and that only reason for denial

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. DIBYA TRADING CO LLP, MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Dibya Trading Co. Llp

section 94(7) of the Act are not applicable. Therefore, it is not open to disallow the short term capital

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. CMS COMPUTERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

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

disallowed, under section 94(7), the loss to the extent of the dividend component, thereby adhering to the statutory disallowance

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. 2015 GROVER FAMILY TRUST, MUMBAI

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

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

disallowed, under section 94(7), the loss to the extent of the dividend component, thereby adhering to the statutory disallowance

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 ()

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of UK Branch office expenses

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

94,82,826 as per Rule 8D for disallowance under section 14A. After giving adjustment to Suo-moto disallowance of Rs.87,18,148 made by the appellant, the disallowance restricted at Rs. 15,07,64,678/- is held to be justified and is confirmed. 12 ITA . No. 1694/MUM/2023 & 2036/MUM/2023 SICOM LTD. Further, reliance is placed on latest decision

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

94,15,430/- and book profit of Rs.56,91,386/ and book profit of Rs.56,91,386/-. While filing the said id return, return, the the assessee assessee had had suo-motu motu disallowed Rs.1,45,32,176/- and Rs.740/ and Rs.740/- u/s 14A of the Income u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

7,339,311/– . However in spite of the repeated opportunities given by the AO the assessee company failed to furnish any evidence to prove that no expenses are incurred for earning of dividend income. The learned assessing officer after discussing the facts of the case and following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court made a disallowance under section

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

7,339,311/– . However in spite of the repeated opportunities given by the AO the assessee company failed to furnish any evidence to prove that no expenses are incurred for earning of dividend income. The learned assessing officer after discussing the facts of the case and following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court made a disallowance under section