← All Phrases

“actual payment basis”

DisallowancesSection 43BSection 43B250 judgments

M/S JIL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 363/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 M/S Jil Information Technology Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, 54, Ja Annexe, Basant Lok, Income Tax, Range-3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Lucknow Pan: Aaacj8827B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Under Section 143(1) Passed For The A.Y. 2021-22 By The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru On 13.11.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Disposing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Passing An Ex-Parte Order Which Is In Gross Violation Of Natural Justice & Fair Play As The Assessee Was Not Provided Reasonable Opportunity To Have Its Say On The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Addition Of Rs.78,17,622/-And Also The Addition Of Rs.74,913/-Do Not Fall Under The Purview Of The Clauses Enshrined In Section 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Also Failed To Appreciate That The Additions Made In The Present Case Are In The Nature Of Debate

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

grossly ignoring the fact that the amount of Rs.78,17,622/-claimed as deduction by the assessee on actual payment basis stood already offered to tax in the previous years by way of adding back the same to the net profit of the respective years. 4. On the facts stated

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 209/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

since the return of A.Y. 2010-11 was revised and the same was allowed in assessment of immediately subsequent A.Y. 2010-11 on actual payment basis. However, in the penalty order passed, there is no allegation of a single word, as to which particulars of such expenses were inaccurate

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 206/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

since the return of A.Y. 2010-11 was revised and the same was allowed in assessment of immediately subsequent A.Y. 2010-11 on actual payment basis. However, in the penalty order passed, there is no allegation of a single word, as to which particulars of such expenses were inaccurate

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

pertaining to earlier years i.e. for the years 2007-2012 ought to have been allowed as deduction in the current assessment year on actual payment basis.’ ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 4. In the course

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

ITA 6703/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

actuarial basis of the provision, deduction for leave encashment is governed by section 43B(f) of the Act and is allowable only on actual payment basis. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd.(116 taxmann.com

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

ITA 6702/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2022-23
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43BSection 80G

actuarial basis of the provision, deduction\nfor leave encashment is governed by section 43B(f) of the Act and\nis allowable only on actual payment basis. Placing reliance on the\njudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Exide\nIndustries Ltd.(116 taxmапп

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

ITA 6701/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43BSection 80G

actuarial basis of the provision, deduction\nfor leave encashment is governed by section 43B(f) of the Act and\nis allowable only on actual payment basis. Placing reliance on the\njudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Exide\nIndustries Ltd.(116 taxmапп

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

ITA 6663/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

actuarial basis of the provision, deduction for leave encashment is governed by section 43B(f) of the Act and is allowable only on actual payment basis. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd.(116 taxmапп

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1217/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

relevant previous year given the mandate of Section\n35DD of the Act. The Assessee has not claimed deduction for the\naforesaid expenses on actual payment basis. We do not find any\nmerit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee that\nsince the relevant previous year would

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1211/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

relevant previous year given the mandate of Section\n35DD of the Act. The Assessee has not claimed deduction for the\naforesaid expenses on actual payment basis. We do not find any\nmerit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee that\nsince the relevant previous year would

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1150/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

relevant previous year given the mandate of Section 35DD of the Act. The Assessee has not claimed deduction for the aforesaid expenses on actual payment basis. We do not find any merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee that since the relevant previous year would

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

relevant previous year given the mandate of Section 35DD of the Act. The Assessee has not claimed deduction for the aforesaid expenses on actual payment basis. We do not find any merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee that since the relevant previous year would

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1125/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

started applying Straight Line Method (SLM), for recognition of lease rent expense over the lease tenure instead of recognition on actual payment basis. This has resulted in incremental lease rent expense of Rs. 93.04 crores during the year under consideration. The ld. Senior Counsel explained that the assessee was earlier

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1124/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

started applying Straight Line Method (SLM), for recognition of lease rent expense over the lease tenure instead of recognition on actual payment basis. This has resulted in incremental lease rent expense of Rs. 93.04 crores during the year under consideration. The ld. Senior Counsel explained that the assessee was earlier

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1123/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

started applying Straight Line Method (SLM), for recognition of lease rent expense over the lease tenure instead of recognition on actual payment basis. This has resulted in incremental lease rent expense of Rs. 93.04 crores during the year under consideration. The ld. Senior Counsel explained that the assessee was earlier

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1122/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

started applying Straight Line Method (SLM), for recognition of lease rent expense over the lease tenure instead of recognition on actual payment basis. This has resulted in incremental lease rent expense of Rs. 93.04 crores during the year under consideration. The ld. Senior Counsel explained that the assessee was earlier

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1121/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

started applying Straight Line Method (SLM), for recognition of lease rent expense over the lease tenure instead of recognition on actual payment basis. This has resulted in incremental lease rent expense of Rs. 93.04 crores during the year under consideration. The ld. Senior Counsel explained that the assessee was earlier

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

ITA 2174/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10(39)Section 115JSection 14A

{ "clean_text": "ITA No.2174/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)\nM/s. The India Cements Ltd.\n:: 2 ::\n2. Ground No. 1 of the

SWATCH GROUP (INDIA) RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4281/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royswatch Group (India) Retail Private Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(2), 4Th Floor, Rectangle 1, Plot No.D4, Delhi. Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (Pan : Aavcs7960H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.07.2024 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

Similarly, travel of a third-party consultant with respect to custom clearance services of INR 10,808 has also been charged on an actual payment basis. Other miscellaneous expenses pertaining to legal and professional charges/consultant charges have been allocated on an equal/50:50 basis. Thus, the expenses have been allocated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

arrear of salary on account of DA is only quantified when it is declared by state government so it will be allowed on actual payment basis u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, 1961. 6. That the Appellant crave leaves to add or amend any one or more of the grounds

Showing 1–20 of 250 · Page 1 of 13

...