SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 26.06.2023 for (AY) 2014-15, dated 19.06.2023 for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17, dated 11.07.2023 for 2017-18 & 2018-19. The common issues contended by the assessee and revenue in all these appeals are listed as under: Revenue's Appeal – Issues contended (i) Learned Commissioner of come Tax (Appeals) erred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 26.06.2023 for (AY) 2014-15, dated 19.06.2023 for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17, dated 11.07.2023 for 2017-18 & 2018-19. The common issues contended by the assessee and revenue in all these appeals are listed as under: Revenue's Appeal – Issues contended (i) Learned Commissioner of come Tax (Appeals) erred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 26.06.2023 for (AY) 2014-15, dated 19.06.2023 for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17, dated 11.07.2023 for 2017-18 & 2018-19. The common issues contended by the assessee and revenue in all these appeals are listed as under: Revenue's Appeal – Issues contended (i) Learned Commissioner of come Tax (Appeals) erred

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], all dated 25.08.2025, arising out of the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. Since these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is a resident company engaged

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

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], all dated 25.08.2025, arising out of the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. Since these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is a resident company engaged

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018- 19. 2. Since both the cross appeals pertain to the same assessee arising out of a similar factual matrix giving rise to similar issues, these cross appeals

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018- 19. 2. Since both the cross appeals pertain to the same assessee arising out of a similar factual matrix giving rise to similar issues, these cross appeals

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

250,84,10,590/- claimed by the Appellant while computing under deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. c) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Aggregate Average Advances were computed by the Appellant as per the Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('IT Rules') and accordingly no excess deduction was claimed under

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], all dated 25.08.2025, arising out of the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. Since these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is a resident company engaged

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act"], all dated 25.08.2025, arising out of the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. Since these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is a resident company engaged

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

250 of the Income-tax, 1961\n[for brevity, the \"Act”] date of order 27/02/2015 for assessment year 2010-11. The\nimpugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Joint Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, LTU, Bangalore [for brevity, the “Ld.AO”], passed under section 143(3),\ndate of order 28/03/2013.\n2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard