PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer - Ward

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer - Ward

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)

32,51,81,770 2015 (F)=(D)-(E) Amount by which Taxes Paid (Gross) 2,80,69,376 exceeds Gross demand as per order dated 29.06. 2015 Refund already granted to the appellant (G) 1,09,84,736 u/s 143(1) on Excess Tax paid net of refund already (F)-(G) 1,70,84,640 issued 4.2 The learned

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)

TDS) as claimed in return of income and reflected in Form 26AS. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 28 above. 30. During the course of hearing both the sides had agreed that there is no change in the facts and circumstances. Ground No. 1

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)

TDS) as claimed in return of income and reflected in Form 26AS. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 28 above. 30. During the course of hearing both the sides had agreed that there is no change in the facts and circumstances. Ground No. 1

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)

TDS) as claimed in return of income and reflected in Form 26AS. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 28 above. 30. During the course of hearing both the sides had agreed that there is no change in the facts and circumstances. Ground No. 1

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

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

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

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

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

32) ITA No. 6663, 6701, 6702 & 6703 /Mum/2025 Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited issue; instead, the income as determined under section 143(1) was adopted, and the adjustment relating to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as made in the intimation under section 143(1) continued to form part of the assessed income. 65. Before

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

1) of the Act, aggregating to Rs. 16,43,60,000/-. The Ld. AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 8,10,18,335/- on the ground that the assessee failed to produce complete documentary evidence for deduction and remittance of tax at source as required under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is, however, not in dispute that

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

32(1) r.w.s. 2(11) of the IT Act.\n2.5 Without prejudice to para 2.2 and 2.3 above, the learned DCIT and Hon'ble\nDRP erred in not considering the value of supply contracts as Goodwill acquired\nfrom GSK, which is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section\n32(1) r.w.s. 2(11) of the IT Act.\n3. Ground

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS of Rs.33,83,093 as against Rs.43,83,437 (as per\nForm 26AS) claimed by the Appellant, thereby there is a short tax credit of\nTDS of Rs.10,00,344.\n14. Ground 14A - Penalty proceedings\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT\nerred in initiating penalty proceedings 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

1 66,32,320 has been paid on account of incentive plans to its employees in the nature of performance shares of TOTAL SA France. This performance shares is awarded become final after the specified three-year vesting period subject to a presence condition and performance condition based on the return on equity. The claim of the assessee was that

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

1 66,32,320 has been paid on account of incentive plans to its employees in the nature of performance shares of TOTAL SA France. This performance shares is awarded become final after the specified three-year vesting period subject to a presence condition and performance condition based on the return on equity. The claim of the assessee was that

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

1 66,32,320 has been paid on account of incentive plans to its employees in the nature of performance shares of TOTAL SA France. This performance shares is awarded become final after the specified three-year vesting period subject to a presence condition and performance condition based on the return on equity. The claim of the assessee was that

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

1 66,32,320 has been paid on account of incentive plans to its employees in the nature of performance shares of TOTAL SA France. This performance shares is awarded become final after the specified three-year vesting period subject to a presence condition and performance condition based on the return on equity. The claim of the assessee was that

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

1 66,32,320 has been paid on account of incentive plans to its employees in the nature of performance shares of TOTAL SA France. This performance shares is awarded become final after the specified three-year vesting period subject to a presence condition and performance condition based on the return on equity. The claim of the assessee was that

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

1 66,32,320 has been paid on account of incentive plans to its employees in the nature of performance shares of TOTAL SA France. This performance shares is awarded become final after the specified three-year vesting period subject to a presence condition and performance condition based on the return on equity. The claim of the assessee was that