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

SHAPOORJI PALLANJI AND COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), against the claim of the assessee at Rs.1 lakh, consequently, the Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to follow the ratio laid down in order dated 27/03/2015 (Assessment Year 2009-10). Thus, ground no. 2 & 3 are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove. 4. So far as, ground no.4 is concerned, the assessee

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

2) of 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

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

14A r.w.r 8D(2)(1) of Rs.\n3.65 crore by treating the said amount as indirect interest\nexpenditure as against direct expenditure as was held by the\nAO.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to re-compute the\ndisallowance u/R 8D(2

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not excluding investments in companies which yielded dividend wherein such dividend has suffered tax under the provisions of section 115-O. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred

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

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

14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 27,87,56,385/- (net of self-disallowance). 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai erred, on facts and in law, in upholding the order of the AO w.r.t. the disallowance of additional claim of Education Cess amounting to Rs. 68,95,27,242/-, which was claimed

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

68,307/- being expenditure incurred for supervising and monitoring of execution of new projects are in the nature of revenue expenditure and thereby deleting the disallowance" LA. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A on the interest component relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend income have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of such interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations and findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt elaborately in the above paragraphs. 13.5. With respect to allocation made

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A on the interest component relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend income have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of such interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations and findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt elaborately in the above paragraphs. 13.5. With respect to allocation made

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A on the interest component relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend income have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of such interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations and findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt elaborately in the above paragraphs. 13.5. With respect to allocation made

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

14A on the interest component relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend income have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of such interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations and findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt elaborately in the above paragraphs. 13.5. With respect to allocation made

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

14A of\nthe Act.\n3. Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80(IA) in respect of captive power\nplant:- Rs. 40,04,53,625/-\nThe learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the deduction u/s\n80(IA) of Rs. 40,04,53,625/-\nin respect of the captive power plant\nby relying on the orders

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

2 | As at \nMarch 31, 2004 | As at \nMarch 31, 2005 \nRupees | Rupees | Rupees \n---|---|---\nSPECIAL RESERVE No. I | 194,35,94,700 | 934,35,94,700\nLess: Transfer to Provision for Contingencies | 50,00,00,000 | 40,00,00,000 \nSPECIAL RESERVE No. II | 144,35,94,700 | 194,35,94,700 \nOpening Balance

ACIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

14A of the Act . The Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law after allowing adequate opportunity of allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The being heard to the assessee

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

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