BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

section\n14A r.w.r 8D and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.\nDisallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2\n16.\nThe AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid\ncommission of Rs.17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return of\nincome has made a disallowance of Rs.50

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

Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of exempt dividend income exempt dividend income earned were submitted as under: Particulars Particulars Amount Amount JUHU BEACH RESORT LTD JUHU

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)

96,000/- and has not disallowed the proportionate interest expenses and a show cause notice was issued for invoking provisions u/sec 14A r.w.r.8D of IT Rules. Whereas the assessee has filed details on 10.03.2016 mentioning that in the assesses own case, the Hon’ble Tribunal for AY:2008-09 has dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance being considered for computing book profit under section 115JB, the CIT(A) held that the same could not be made following various judicial precedence. 7. The Ld.AR submitted the below workings to submit that the own funds of the assessee is more than the investments made in tax free income earning investments. Own Funds workings (Rs in lakhs) Particulars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance being considered for computing book profit under section 115JB, the CIT(A) held that the same could not be made following various judicial precedence. 7. The Ld.AR submitted the below workings to submit that the own funds of the assessee is more than the investments made in tax free income earning investments. Own Funds workings (Rs in lakhs) Particulars

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Disallowance of INR.98,30,093/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of VSAT Expenses/Line Charges of INR.1,63,309] and Transaction Charges of INR 96

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, quantified at tax Act, 1961, quantified at ₹1,19,32,795/-. 8.1 Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was holding investments in quoted and unquoted shares amounting to lding

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, quantified at tax Act, 1961, quantified at ₹1,19,32,795/-. 8.1 Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was holding investments in quoted and unquoted shares amounting to lding

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

96,75,028/- was disallowed by the assessee and was disallowed by the assessee and added in the computation of the income for added in the computation of the income for income income-tax return he amount of ₹5,70,00,000/- was purposes but the amount of as considered as revenue expenditure. revenue expenditure. M/s Avendus Capital

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 14 A of the IT Act to ₹ 31.19 crore without giving any specific reason and overlooking the detailed calculation made by the AO as per annexure 1 and 2 of the order 4. (a) on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in allowing the broken period interest

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

section\n14A r.w.r 8D and thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.\n13\nITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16\nBajaj Electricals Limited\nDisallowance of commission expenses – Ground No.2\n16.\nThe AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has paid\ncommission of Rs.17,06,10,525/- and that the assessee has in the original return

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 ₹10,22,402/- at ₹107,19,96

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 ₹10,22,402/- at ₹107,19,96

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

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURE CONSUMER LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FUTURE CONSUMER ENTERPRISES LIMITED ), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

96,770/- as disallowance under section 14A. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the working of disallowance under

TATA PETRODYNE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance of ` 38,96,392 under section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer being of the view that disallowance

ACIT , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD , MUMBAI

96,10,338/-, and the balance amount of disallowance made\nby the AO is directed to be deleted. However, the AO is directed to verify this computation\nfiled by the appellant and thereafter make such disallowance under section

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

96,398, estimated at the rate of 0.10 per cent of Rs 479.63 crores being\nthe aggregate demand draft/ at par cheques issued by the appellant-society on\nreceipt of cash from the account holders against the addition of Rs 479.63\ncrores made by the Assessing Officer.\n4.2. The CIT(A) erred in treating the appellants as facilitator of alleged