PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 2 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

28A)/2(28B) of the Act. 12. We note that while rejecting Appellants contention, the CIT(A) had relied upon Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 (Bom) wherein it was held that broken-period-interest should be treated as revenue expenditure

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 2 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

28A)/2(28B) of the Act. 12. We note that while rejecting Appellants contention, the CIT(A) had relied upon Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 (Bom) wherein it was held that broken-period-interest should be treated as revenue expenditure

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 2 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

28A)/2(28B) of the Act. 12. We note that while rejecting Appellants contention, the CIT(A) had relied upon Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 (Bom) wherein it was held that broken-period-interest should be treated as revenue expenditure

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 2 (1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

28A)/2(28B) of the Act. 12. We note that while rejecting Appellants contention, the CIT(A) had relied upon Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 (Bom) wherein it was held that broken-period-interest should be treated as revenue expenditure

ACIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHANAGAR GAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Mahanagar Gas Ltd. The Addl.Commissioner Of Mgl House, Block No. G-33, Income-Tax10(1), फनधभ/ Bandra Kurla Complex, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra (East), M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) The Asstt.Commissioner Of Mahanagar Gas Ltd. Income-Tax-14(2)(1), Mgl House, Block No. G-33, फनधभ/ 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), Vs. M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 020. स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aabcm4640G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri P P Jayaraman प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri G Nantha Kumar

68,49,000/- and the expenses were not allowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accordingly disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding

MAHANAGAR GAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Mahanagar Gas Ltd. The Addl.Commissioner Of Mgl House, Block No. G-33, Income-Tax10(1), फनधभ/ Bandra Kurla Complex, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra (East), M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) The Asstt.Commissioner Of Mahanagar Gas Ltd. Income-Tax-14(2)(1), Mgl House, Block No. G-33, फनधभ/ 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), Vs. M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 020. स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aabcm4640G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri P P Jayaraman प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri G Nantha Kumar

68,49,000/- and the expenses were not allowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accordingly disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,27,62,750/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded the assessment by making a disallowance of Rs. 3,72,00,210/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source on payment made to M/s Rewa Infrastructure

ACIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

68,84,547/- raised by assessing officer in its order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to Nil. 2. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” During the year under consideration the Assessee

DCIT CIR 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CITY CENTRE MALL NASHIK P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Circle-6(2)(1) M/S. City Centre Mall Room No.563, Aayakar Vs. Nashik Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Room No.62, Plot No.8-9, Churchgate, Mumbai-20 Parekh Mahal, Jamshedji Road, Sakharam Keer Marg, Mahim, Mumbai- 400 016. Pan No. Aaccc 6422 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Milin Bakhai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. H.N. Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21 /08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2018

section 2(28A) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction @ 1/5th of interest paid amounting to Rs. 1,65,68

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI-400021 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

28A of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. According to the Assessing Officer the Assessee was under obligation to pay tax at the rate of 15% on INR 1281,22,90,000/- being the amount of surplus declared/distributed. Thus the Assessing Officer concluded that additional income tax of INR 207,87,94,053/- was payable

TWINKLE ENVIRO TECH PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Twinkle Enviro- Tech Vs. Dcit, Circle 2(1) Pvt Ltd. Old Cgo Annexe 317/318, Parvati Bldg, Mumbai – Industrial Estate, Sun 400020. Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4038N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.Vinay Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-48 Passed U/S 143(3) & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

28A), this fact automatically invites the application of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) To put it differently and clearly once the expenditure in this form is classified as the interest Twinkle Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. the provisions of section 194A invites application of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) in the form of disallowance

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

28A) of the Act. Briefly, interest payment is an expense under Section 36(1)(iii). Interest on monies borrowed for business purposes is an expenditure in a business [see 35 ITR 339 – Madras]. For claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the following conditions are required to be satisfied viz. the capital must have been borrowed; it must

AIR INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

68,609/-. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO be directed to delete disallowance under section 14A of ₹ 4,40,85,201/-.” 6. We noted that this issue is also covered by the Tribunals decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal has decided this issue

DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AIR INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

68,609/-. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO be directed to delete disallowance under section 14A of ₹ 4,40,85,201/-.” 6. We noted that this issue is also covered by the Tribunals decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal has decided this issue

AIR INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

68,609/-. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO be directed to delete disallowance under section 14A of ₹ 4,40,85,201/-.” 6. We noted that this issue is also covered by the Tribunals decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal has decided this issue

AIR INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

68,609/-. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO be directed to delete disallowance under section 14A of ₹ 4,40,85,201/-.” 6. We noted that this issue is also covered by the Tribunals decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal has decided this issue

DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AIR INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

68,609/-. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO be directed to delete disallowance under section 14A of ₹ 4,40,85,201/-.” 6. We noted that this issue is also covered by the Tribunals decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal has decided this issue

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

68,09,850/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and relevant notices u/s 143 (2) and 142(1) were issued and duly served on the assessee. A.O. assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 7, 35, 77,139/-. The assessee is non-resident having the sources of income in India. During the relevant Financial Years

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

68,620/- together with 50,000 USD as its fee / commission income for enabling the Indian customers to avail ECBs from its overseas branches. The said receipt of fee / commission income has been accepted to be at arm's length. Hence, there is no question of further fee that is required for the assessee in respect of continuing ECBs