BAJAJ CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

68,72,735/- section 10(34) of the Act; (ii) interest income of section 10(34) of the Act; (ii) interest income of claimed exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act; and (iii) long- claimed exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act; and (iii) long claimed exempt under section

DCIT CENT. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. RARE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 14A of the Act, reproduced above". (c) Extract from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hero Management Services Limited 360ITR 68

DCIT CENT. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. RARE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 14A of the Act, reproduced above". (c) Extract from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hero Management Services Limited 360ITR 68

ZODIAC VENTURES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanzodiac Ventures Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 404, Dev Plaza, 68, S.V. Road, 11(3)(4) Andheri West, Mumbai – Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi 400058. Karve Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aafps7328J 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

68, S.V. Road, 11(3)(4) Andheri West, Mumbai – Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi 400058. Karve Road, Mumbai- PAN: AAFPS7328J 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri. S. C. Tiwari Department Represented by : Shri. Mahesh Parwani Sr.AR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This present appeal

SAURASHTRA FUELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 for disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 7,22,027/- towards administrative and other indirect expenses which was affirmed by the CIT(A ) and the same is also hereby affirm by us as we have found no infirmity in the orders of the authorities

J.M FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT CONSULTANCY SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 14A at ₹19,79,144/-, along with Securities Transaction Tax (STT) of , along with Securities Transaction Tax (STT) of , along with Securities Transaction Tax (STT) of ₹2,36,056/- and demat charges of and demat charges of ₹40,698/-. 2.2 However, the return of income did not contain any details or However, the return of income

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 2.2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. : 821/Mum/2023 1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai erred, on facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A r.w.r

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JUICY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

section 68 of the Act, the\nAssessee is required to explain the nature and also the source of\nthe credit appearing in its books. The explanation offered by the\nAssessee is, in his opinion is not satisfactory and therefore, the sum\nso credited may be charged to income tax, as the income of the\nAssessee of that previous year

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

68,104/-in terms\nof section 14A of the Act.\n6.9 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) firstly

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

68,03,979/- without\nconsidering Accounting Standards based on matching\nprinciple.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of\nRs.68,16,10,308/- made by the AO being the expenditure\nincurred in relation to income to which section

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 84,68,874/- 34 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (ii) Disallowance of Prior

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 84,68,874/- 34 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (ii) Disallowance of Prior

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

section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 84,68,874/- 34 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (ii) Disallowance of Prior

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)

section 14A applies irrespective of whether shares are held to gain control or as stock-in-trade. In view of the above decisions which are relevant to the instant case, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14A(3) of the Act. Thus the AO made a disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 as under:- Computation of 14A Disallowance as per Notification No. 45/2008 dated 24/3/2008 A Directly Attributed Expenses Amount Direct Expenses Total Direct Expenses 20,357 B Interest Expenses Interest which cannot be directly

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14A(3) of the Act. Thus the AO made a disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 as under:- Computation of 14A Disallowance as per Notification No. 45/2008 dated 24/3/2008 A Directly Attributed Expenses Amount Direct Expenses Total Direct Expenses 20,357 B Interest Expenses Interest which cannot be directly

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,259 the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year Total Disallowance under Section 29,42,64,233 14A

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,259 the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year Total Disallowance under Section 29,42,64,233 14A