DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

35. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that - (i) These expenses in comparison to total expenses (i.e. Rs. 3,636.75 crores) are minuscule, which comes to around only 0.02% of our total expenditure. (ii) That expenses attributable to the earlier years but crystallize in the year under consideration on receipt of M/s. Asian Paints invoice/bills ought

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

35. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that (i) These expenses in comparison to total expenses (i.e. Rs. 3,636.75 crores) are minuscule, which comes to around only 0.02% of our total expenditure. (ii) That expenses attributable to the earlier years but crystallize in the year under consideration on receipt of invoice/bills ought to be allowed. Even

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)

ii) interest on Rs, 1,70,84,640 for the period from date of payment of Self Assessment Tax to 29.06.2015.” Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) held that clause (b) to sub-section 1 to Section 244A of the 1961 Act is applicable in the instant case and hence the assessee is entitled for interest on the refund

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

TDS credit was allowed on\nthe basis of Form 26AS and, in absence of reconciliation to his\nsatisfaction, no further credit could be allowed.\nGround No. VII -Levy of interest under section 234D Rs.\n5,26,845/-\n61. The Assessing Officer levied interest under section 234D of\nthe Act on the ground that the refund granted earlier was in\nexcess

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

35(2AB), however, the DSIR in its Form 3CL,\nspecifically disallowed \"rent, electricity and maintenance\".\nThe Assessee relied on plethora of decisions in its favour to\ncontend that once facility is approved and other conditions\nare complied with, DSIR cannot quantify expenditure and\nspecifically considering that the amendment to Rule 6(7A)(b)\nwas w.e.f.1.7.2016. The Hon'ble Tribunal took

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

II – Employees’ contribution to PF under section 36(1)(va) of Rs. 41,05,801/- 50. We also have already adjudicated the issue relating to deduction under section 80G while deciding the corresponding ground for A.Y. 2017–18. Since the facts and the applicable legal principles for the year under consideration are identical, we do not consider it necessary

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

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

ii) alleged infirmity in the method of profit computation 28 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore adopted by the assessee. However, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR that the Act does not mandate the maintenance of separate books of account for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viii), nor does

DY CIT CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

35(2AB), however, the DSIR in its Form 3CL,\nspecifically disallowed \"rent, electricity and maintenance\".\nThe Assessee relied on plethora of decisions in its favour to\ncontend that once facility is approved and other conditions\nare complied with, DSIR cannot quantify expenditure and\nspecifically considering that the amendment to Rule 6(7A)(b)\nwas w.e.f.1.7.2016. The Hon'ble Tribunal took

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

35. Further, There is no dispute that the impugned journal entries in the respective books were done with the view to raise funds from the sister concerns, to assign the receivable among the sister concerns, to adjust or transfer the balances, to consolidate the debts, to correct the clerical errors etc. In the language of the Hon‟ble High court

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

35. Further, There is no dispute that the impugned journal entries in the respective books were done with the view to raise funds from the sister concerns, to assign the receivable among the sister concerns, to adjust or transfer the balances, to consolidate the debts, to correct the clerical errors etc. In the language of the Hon‟ble High court

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

35. Further, There is no dispute that the impugned journal entries in the respective books were done with the view to raise funds from the sister concerns, to assign the receivable among the sister concerns, to adjust or transfer the balances, to consolidate the debts, to correct the clerical errors etc. In the language of the Hon‟ble High court

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

35. Further, There is no dispute that the impugned journal entries in the respective books were done with the view to raise funds from the sister concerns, to assign the receivable among the sister concerns, to adjust or transfer the balances, to consolidate the debts, to correct the clerical errors etc. In the language of the Hon‟ble High court

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

35. Further, There is no dispute that the impugned journal entries in the respective books were done with the view to raise funds from the sister concerns, to assign the receivable among the sister concerns, to adjust or transfer the balances, to consolidate the debts, to correct the clerical errors etc. In the language of the Hon‟ble High court

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

35. Further, There is no dispute that the impugned journal entries in the respective books were done with the view to raise funds from the sister concerns, to assign the receivable among the sister concerns, to adjust or transfer the balances, to consolidate the debts, to correct the clerical errors etc. In the language of the Hon‟ble High court

DY CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

35(2AB), however, the DSIR in its Form 3CL,\nspecifically disallowed \"rent, electricity and maintenance\".\nThe Assessee relied on plethora of decisions in its favour to\ncontend that once facility is approved and other conditions\nare complied with, DSIR cannot quantify expenditure and\nspecifically considering that the amendment to Rule 6(7A)(b)\nwas w.e.f.1.7.2016. The Hon'ble Tribunal took

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 2, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

35(2AB), however, the DSIR in its Form 3CL,\nspecifically disallowed \"rent, electricity and maintenance\".\nThe Assessee relied on plethora of decisions in its favour to\ncontend that once facility is approved and other conditions\nare complied with, DSIR cannot quantify expenditure and\nspecifically considering that the amendment to Rule 6(7A)(b)\nwas w.e.f.1.7.2016. The Hon'ble Tribunal took