DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

III in para 11.8)." (Emphasis supplied) The inferences to be drawn from the Board's circular is clear that if refund is out of any tax other than out of advance-tax or tax deducted at source, interest shall be payable from the date of payment of tax and ending on the date of the grant of refund

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

iii) or sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance for- (a) industrial or agricultural development; (b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or (c) development of housing in India. 23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified entity and is carrying on 'eligible business

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

iii) or sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance for- (a) industrial or agricultural development; (b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or (c) development of housing in India. 23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified entity and is carrying on 'eligible business

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

iii) or sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance for- (a) industrial or agricultural development; (b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or (c) development of housing in India. 23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified entity and is carrying on 'eligible business

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

iii) or sub-clause (iv) of clause (a), namely the business of providing long-term finance for- (a) industrial or agricultural development; (b) development of infrastructure facility in India, or (c) development of housing in India. 23. It is an admitted fact that the appellant comes within the definition of a 'specified entity and is carrying on 'eligible business

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

26,33,040/- made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee had failed to establish commercial expediency in respect of loans granted to its wholly owned subsidiaries. Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 08/02/2024, which has been impugned by way of the present cross-appeals

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

26,33,040/- made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee had failed to establish commercial expediency in respect of loans granted to its wholly owned subsidiaries. Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 08/02/2024, which has been impugned by way of the present cross-appeals

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

26,33,040/- made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee had failed to establish commercial expediency in respect of loans granted to its wholly owned subsidiaries. Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 08/02/2024, which has been impugned by way of the present cross-appeals

ACIT 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS MAHARASTRA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

iii) of the Act. Section 37 is a residuary section which allows business expenditure in computing residuary section which allows business expenditure in computing residuary section which allows business expenditure in computing the taxable business income of an Assessee. Expenses allowed as the taxable business income of an Assessee. Expenses allowed as the taxable business income of an Assessee. Expenses

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

26,247/-\nincome\n6.\nIn A.Y. 2017-18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees'\ncontribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 82,10,149/-\nunder section 36(1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under\nsection 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs.\n92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment of tax\ndeducted at source amounting

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

26,247/- income 6. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 82,10,149/- under section 36(1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment of tax deducted at source amounting

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

26,555/-) 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of taxes paid abroad from business income even though the provisions of section 40aii) of the Act are pery clear for not granting the amounts covered us 90 or 91 as allowable expenditure

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

26,555/-) 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of taxes paid abroad from business income even though the provisions of section 40aii) of the Act are pery clear for not granting the amounts covered us 90 or 91 as allowable expenditure

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

26) which defines company\" to mean a company formed\nand registered under the Companies Act, 1956, does not meet the\nrequirement of being a company in the case of assessee bank, because the\nIndian company has to be formed and registered under the Companies Act.\nNotwithstanding that Section 11 of the Acquisition Act deems assessee bank\nto be a company

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

26,284 of lease rental receipts. Thus, the TDS amount is the TDS amount is being part of the gross receipt shown by the gross receipt shown by the assessee assessee and the M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 assessee has adjusted against its share of Rs.14

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

26,284 of lease rental receipts. Thus, the TDS amount is the TDS amount is being part of the gross receipt shown by the gross receipt shown by the assessee assessee and the M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 assessee has adjusted against its share of Rs.14

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)

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. Thus, the scope of newly substituted Section 143(1) was limited to the aforesaid adjustments. On the other hand the scope of regular scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act continued

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)

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. Thus, the scope of newly substituted Section 143(1) was limited to the aforesaid adjustments. On the other hand the scope of regular scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act continued