← All Phrases

“Section 37(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 37Section 37(1)4,308 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 37(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 37(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

Judgments citing Section 37(1)

ACIT Circle-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

holding that the demurrage charges paid to Railways is not penal in nature and does not fall within the purview of explanation to Section 37(1)." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the assessee i.e. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) is an undertaking of Government ... been paid to Railways like overloading charges, hence at the very outset, these are not covered within the ambit of Explanation 1 of section 37(1) of the ACTF. The fact of incurrence of these expenses for the purpose of business is also not in doubt. Accordingly, we hold that

DCIT Circle-1, Dhanbad vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

holding that the demurrage charges paid to Railways is not penal in nature and does not fall within the purview of explanation to Section 37(1)." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the assessee i.e. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) is an undertaking of Government ... been paid to Railways like overloading charges, hence at the very outset, these are not covered within the ambit of Explanation 1 of section 37(1) of the ACTF. The fact of incurrence of these expenses for the purpose of business is also not in doubt. Accordingly, we hold that

Dana Anand India Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Akurdi, Pune

ITA 1571/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37Section 37(1)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 80ASection 80G

that the said donations have been already disallowed by the appellant in computing income from business as per the Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the IT Act. The learned AO/ DRP failed to appreciate that the deduction u/'s 80G falling in Chapter VIA has been claimed

Ndtv Networks Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6647/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Ndtv Networks Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-18(1), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcn3073A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(13)Section 37(1)

business' under Section 2(13) Act and also, that earning of business income is not a decisive factor for claiming business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of Rs.1,60,00,000/-, being ... holding company" does not entitled the assessee to claim it as a business. Hence, expenditure claimed by the assessee under section 37(1) was held to be not admissible since there was no income under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. The appellant has submitted that

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 642/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

circular, as noted in the foregoing paragraphs, held that the statutory contribution made by the assessee to the Core SGF is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act ITA No.642/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) js | as the said contribution has been made exclusively during the course of carrying

Vayam Technologies Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1476/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)

gains"? (3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in making disallowance of Rs.268,91,48,934/- out of lease rental payments under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961? (4) Whether payment of Supplementary Lease Rent of Rs.328,09,64,412 l-is an allowable business expenditure

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2489/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-11(1), Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited Kolkata Room No 504, Woodburn Aayakar Bhawan, 6Thfloor, P-7, Central, 5A,Bibhabati Bose, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Sarani Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 Westbengal-700020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm1113E Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Smt. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Royal Canin India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground no

ITA 4546/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta a/w Shri AnmolFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

respect of franchisee fee and intra- group service charges by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprise(s), as being ineligible for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. Corporate Tax Grounds 9 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. DRP have ... proposed to enhance the assessee's income and disallow the entire amount of Franchisee fee and the intra-group services under section 37(1) of the Act. In response to the same, the assessee filed a detailed submission, wherein the assessee contented against the enhancement of income proposed

Basera Builders, Mathura vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 230/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.M.Agrawal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE

Krishna Construction Co, Talala, Junagadh vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, ground no.2(e ) raised by the assessee, is partly allowed

ITA 608/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.608/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Construction Co. The Dcit, Cir.1(1) बनाम Below Dr.Antalas Hospital Rajkot. Station Road, Talala (Gir) Vs. Junagadh. Pan : Aaifk 8897 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Purpletalk India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 193/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 37(1)Section 92C

1)(va) of the Act. 15. The Ld. AO legally erred in disallowing interest paid on TDS default of Rs. 3,488/-under section 37(1) of the Act. 16. The Ld AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act against legally untenable adjustments

Grp Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4525/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: him was not adjudicated though details of the said expenditure were also provided.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant/Assessee submitted that the Appellant/Assessee has filed application under the ‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024′ opting for settlement and has received the Certificate in Form 2 [Acknowledgement Number 898854431110325]. In view of the aforesaid, as requested by the Appellant/Assessee, the the pres

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Faiyaz Ahmed, Gauripur vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhubri

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

ITA 268/GTY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण गुवाहाटी पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्ुअल कोटु] [Virtual

Agra Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society, Agra vs. PCIT, Central, Pune

ITA 549/PUN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent 2

Section 12A

thus expenditure incurred in distribution of such freebies would not be allowed as deduction in terms of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. Giving reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, 1d. PCIT noticed that in the instant case the Pharmaceutical Company EPL has given ... pharmaceutical company has also avoided disallowance of expenditure in violation of the MCI Regulations which come in the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and CBDT Circular No 05/2012. This clearly shows that the averments of the Assessing Officer in his reference are proved

The Mumbai Obstetric Gynaecological Society, Low Parel (W) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

ITA 522/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Appellant Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Respondent 2

Section 12A

thus expenditure incurred in distribution of such freebies would not be allowed as deduction in terms of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. Giving reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, 1d. PCIT noticed that in the instant case the Pharmaceutical Company EPL has given ... pharmaceutical company has also avoided disallowance of expenditure in violation of the MCI Regulations which come in the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and CBDT Circular No 05/2012. This clearly shows that the averments of the Assessing Officer in his reference are proved

Poona Obstetrics and Gynaecological Society, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Pune

ITA 518/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Appellant Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 Vs. Principal Commissioner 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Appellant Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Respondent 2

Section 12A

thus expenditure incurred in distribution of such freebies would not be allowed as deduction in terms of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. Giving reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, 1d. PCIT noticed that in the instant case the Pharmaceutical Company EPL has given ... pharmaceutical company has also avoided disallowance of expenditure in violation of the MCI Regulations which comes in the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and CBDT Circular No 05/2012. This clearly shows that the averments of the Assessing Officer in his reference are proved

Aids Society of India, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

ITA 417/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent 2

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A

thus expenditure incurred in distribution of such freebies would not be allowed as deduction in terms of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. Giving reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, 1d. PCIT noticed that in the instant case the Pharmaceutical Company EPL has given ... pharmaceutical company has also avoided disallowance of expenditure in violation of the MCI Regulations which come in the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and CBDT Circular No 05/2012. This clearly shows that the averments of the Assessing Officer in his reference are proved

ITO 41(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Parvez Ahmed Khalkullah Choudhary, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stand partly allowed as indicated here in above

ITA 497/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 37(1)Section 68

transaction. The Ld.DR submitted that, the assessee treated GST penalty as an expenditure which is not allowable as per the proviso section 37(1) of the Act. It is thus submitted that, all the above additions stood deleted in the hands of the assessee based on the additional evidences filed

E I P R (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Todi Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 896/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 896/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Todi Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Ito-8(3)(2), Mumbai 1St Floor, Todi Estate, Sun बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mill Compound, Lower Road, Maharashtra- Parel (W), Maharashtra- 400020 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4620Q Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 115JSection 234Section 234BSection 250Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)Section 72Section 80G

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER