THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

40A(9) of the Act. This Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the revenue’s appeal, in which the Tribunal had allowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee. 11. Once again in case of The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-14 Vs. Indian Oil Corporation reported in Income Tax Appeal No. 1765 of M/s. Tata Power

M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP,MENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

40A(9) of the Act. This Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the revenue‘s appeal, in which the Tribunal had allowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee. 11. Once again in case of The Principal Commissioner of Income- Tax-14 Vs. Indian Oil Corporation reported in Income Tax Appeal No.1765 of 2016, revenue had raised such

DENTSU AEGIS NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(ERSTWHILE VIZEUM MEDIA SERVICE INDIA MERGED IN DAN INDIA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardentsu Aegis Network Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Vizeum Media Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Service India Merged Maharashi Karve With Dentsu Aegis Marg, Mumbai-400 Network India Private 020 Limited W.E.F. 1St April 2017) 2Nd Floor, Devchand House, Dr. A. B. Road, Shiv Sagar Estate Mumbai, Worli So, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aahca3058N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

TDS should not be deducted on reimbursements, which itself showed that the assessee’s contention that these were pure reimbursements was not acceptable. He thus concluded that the reimbursement of salary and bonus was not allowable as business expenditure and disallowed the same under section 37(1) of the Act. He further recorded that the payments were made to related

VILAS TRANSPORT COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Vilas Transport Company Income Tax Officer-13(2)(1) 103/104, Vyapar Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 49, P. D’Mello Road, Carnac Mumbai 400020 Bunder, Mumbai 400009 Pan - Aaafv0760G Appellant Respondent

TDS has been made by the principals on the gross amount only. This finding of the fact goes to prove that the assessee's principals made payment to the assessee only and not to the individual parties. Therefore, the assessee is statutorily obliged to adhere to the provisions of the Act while conducting his business affairs, particularly in the context

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

40A(9) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 5 ITA No. 7424 Mum 2010 & 8533 Mum 2011-Greaves Cotton Ltd. GROUND: E: UNUTILISED CENVAT CREDIT - (Rs. 2,95,78,424/- (-) Rs.l,49,82,050) Rs.l,45,96,374/- (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer and the DRP should not have added unutilized

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2),

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 195 and accordingly no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(i). 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in respect of contribution of Rs. 10,00,00,000 to SBI Retired Employees Medical Benefit Fund. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Cochin Tribunal in the case

ACIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 195 and accordingly no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(i). 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in respect of contribution of Rs. 10,00,00,000 to SBI Retired Employees Medical Benefit Fund. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Cochin Tribunal in the case

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

9,00,000/- being disallowance of miscellaneous expenses being repayment of advance, Rs. 14,77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a