ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS and therefore, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The assessee relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pfizer Ltd. (ITA No. 1667 and 1765/Mum/2010 & IDBI Vs. ITO 107 ITD 45 (Mumbai). The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make disallowance under section

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS and therefore, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The assessee relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pfizer Ltd. (ITA No. 1667 and 1765/Mum/2010 & IDBI Vs. ITO 107 ITD 45 (Mumbai). The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make disallowance under section

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

43B of the Act. E) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 (which provided for the disallowance of delayed deposit of the employees' contribution received to Provident Fund) was applicable from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, THANE, ASHAR IT PART, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE WEST vs. MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, SANDOZBAUGH SO THANE

In the result, the Cross appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

43B of the Act.\n2.\nWithout prejudice, in the event of ground of the revenue allowed on above issue,\nthen the impugned amount of Rs 7 cr. May be allowed in the year of crystallization\nof the liability/debit in the books of account.\n3.\nOn the facts and the circumstances, the ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition

RARE TOWNSHIPS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 (4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS credit can be allowed only in the year in which the income has offered to tax as per the provisions of section 199 r.w.r. 37BA of the Rules. 3. Aggrieved the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A) against the disallowance made under section 43B

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

TDS credit. Some grounds were dismissed, some allowed, and some restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 143(1)", "Section 143(2)", "Section 142(1)", "Section 143(3)", "Section 144B", "Section 80G", "Section 36(1)(va)", "Section 40(a)(ia)", "Section 43B

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

TDS and\ntherefore, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The assessee relied on the\ndecision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pfizer Ltd. (ITA No. 1667 and\n1765/Mum/2010 & IDBI Vs. ITO 107 ITD 45 (Mumbai). The AO did not accept\nthe submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make disallowance under\nsection

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

TDS and\ntherefore, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The assessee relied on the\ndecision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pfizer Ltd. (ITA No. 1667 and\n1765/Mum/2010 & IDBI Vs. ITO 107 ITD 45 (Mumbai). The AO did not accept\nthe submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make disallowance under\nsection

HERRENKNECHT INDIA P.LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIR 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

TDS u/s194C of the Act and also late payment to employees contribution to PF. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground Number-1 of assessee’s appeal is delayed payments of employees contribution to PF u/s 43B

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)

Section 43B of the AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 Act on account of employee bonus/commission (c) deleting the adjustment made on account of Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) amounting to INR.2,27,82,861/-, (d) granting credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS

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)

Section 43B of the AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 Act on account of employee bonus/commission (c) deleting the adjustment made on account of Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) amounting to INR.2,27,82,861/-, (d) granting credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS

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)

Section 43B of the AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 Act on account of employee bonus/commission (c) deleting the adjustment made on account of Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) amounting to INR.2,27,82,861/-, (d) granting credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS

QUICK BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhquick Builders Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(1) Plot No. 142, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 08, Piramal Shah House, S.V.Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Khar, West, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafq0227F Appellant .. Respondent

section 43B under Finance Act, 2021 as clarificatory in nature and the law to be applied prospectively. 4. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the TDS

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

TDS credit, DDT, and interest levies.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 250", "Sec 143(1)", "Sec 143(2)", "Sec 142(1)", "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 144B", "Sec 80G", "Sec 36(1)(va)", "Sec 40(a)(ia)", "Sec 43B

M/S. ALMECH FACADES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC`, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Almech Facades Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre (Nfac), 113B, Hub Town Solaris Delhi Building, Vs. N.S. Phadke Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan: Aanca3788P (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS respectively under section 36 of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal challenging the impugned order passed by CPC/AO Bangalore who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved 3 M/s. Almech Facades Pvt. Ltd. with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has come

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

43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source, and levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. Additions and disallowances were made year-wise, and penalty proceedings under section 270A were initiated wherever applicable. 4. Aggrieved by the respective assessment orders, the assessee carried the matters in appeal before the CIT(A).Before

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 3(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS provisions and CBDT has clarified through various circulars that if GST services are indicated separately in the invoice then no tax would be deducted at GST components. By way of illustration following circulars have been referred to before us under various\nSections:-\nSr. No.\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\n5.\nCircular No.\nCircular No. 5 of 2023\nCircular

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal and cross objection are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

43B would be attracted in that regard. The Assessing Officer shall consider this aspect also. 26. Ground No. 24 and 25 related to prior period expenses. 27. Brief facts on this issue are as under :- The order of the assessing officer shows that on perusal of Annexure-15 of the audit report it became evident that the appellant had debited