DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

135 of the Companies Act, 2013. It\nis pertinent to point out that the intention of the legislature was clear when the same was\nclarified by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 that CSR expenses will not fall under the business\nexpenditure and also there has been an express bar specified in sub clause (iiihk) and (iiihl)\nof section

DEUTSCHE INDIA PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS 'DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS credit of Rs.8,73,443. 4. The AO erred in charging interest of Rs.1,26,28,36,544 under section 234B of the Act. The appellants pray that the AO be directed to recompute interest under section 234B and delete the excess interest charged. 5 The AO erred in charging interest of Rs.63,19,467 under section 234C

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

135 of the Companies Act, 2013, and has duly incurred CSR expenditure in compliance with the said provisions." 9. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in justifying the fact that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the deduction under Section 80G on the ground that CSR expenditure

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

135 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is\npertinent to point out that the intention of the legislature was clear when the same was\nclarified by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 that CSR expenses will not fall under the\nbusiness expenditure and also there has been an express bar specified in sub clause\n(iiihk) and (iiihl) of section

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

135 (5) of the Companies Act are also\neligible for deduction/s 80G of Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT the\nAct subject to satisfying the requisite conditions prescribed for deduction u/s 80G of\nthe Act. For this purpose, the issue is remanded to the file ofAO to examine the same\nwhether the payments satisfy the claim of donation

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

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

135 (5) of the Companies Act are also\neligible for deduction/s 80G of Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT the\nAct subject to satisfying the requisite conditions prescribed for deduction u/s 80G of\nthe Act. For this purpose, the issue is remanded to the file ofAO to examine the same\nwhether the payments satisfy the claim of donation

JCIT OSD CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

135 (5) of the Companies Act are also\neligible for deduction/s 80G of Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT the\nAct subject to satisfying the requisite conditions prescribed for deduction u/s 80G of\nthe Act. For this purpose, the issue is remanded to the file ofAO to examine the same\nwhether the payments satisfy the claim of donation

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, 17Th Floor, One World Center, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400013 Pan : Aaacb6134D V/S

TDS within the due date. On the other hand, the assessee is claiming the amount in this year. Accordingly, the AO held that the amount of ₹ 65,03,040/- is not allowable as a deduction in the year under consideration. 8. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue and held

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

TDS within the due date. On the other hand, the assessee is claiming\nthe amount in this year. Accordingly, the AO held that the amount of ₹\n65,03,040/- is not allowable as a deduction in the year under consideration.\n8. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised\nby the assessee on this issue and held

PASHUPATI CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

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

TDS which was also required to be verified whether\nthe taxable income has been disclosed correctly.\n3. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021 and assessee\nsubmitted his reply alongwith Computation of Income, Balance Sheet and P\n& L Account, Tax Audit Report and Statutory Audit Report. Subsequently, a\nnotice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued

AUGMONT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanaugmont Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle-6(1)(2), 201, A/B & 202, 2Nd Floor, Trade Vs. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar World, D-Wing, Kamala Mills Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Compound, S. B. Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400 003. Pan: Aagcr3007D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

TDS. It is required to be verified whether the taxable income has been disclosed correctly” 17. It is a settled law that any issue decided by ITAT or the Hon‟ble High Court, is binding upon the assessing authorities and in that regard, we are supported bythe decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court inK. N. Agarwal Vs. Commissioner

CHEMICAL PROCESS PIPING PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Chemical Process Piping Pcit, Mumbai-6, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R. No. 501, Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, Cpe Plot, B.S.D. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 Govandi, Mumbai-400 088 020 Pan: Aaccc6212D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi & Shri Harshad Shah, Ld. Ars Department Represented By : Shri R. A. Dhyani, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

TDS. It is required to be verified whether the taxable income has been disclosed correctly” 17. It is a settled law that any issue decided by ITAT or the Hon‟ble High Court, is binding upon the assessing authorities and in that regard, we are supported bythe decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court inK. N. Agarwal Vs. Commissioner

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

135 of the Companies Act, 2013;\n4.1.2 The amount so used is not a donation eligible u/s.80G even if given to a\ntrust eligible u/s.80G as the recipient trust is only spending the\nAppellant's CSR obligation on behalf of the Appellant.\n4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, inter alia, the restriction\nimposed by the Explanation