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

capital gains on equity shares. The CIT(A) upheld the said addition and rejected the contention that the same was assessable under a different head. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow correct credit of tax deducted at source and treated the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C as consequential.\n10. Aggrieved

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

capital gains on equity\nshares. The CIT(A) upheld the said addition and rejected the\ncontention that the same was assessable under a different head.\nThe CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow\ncorrect credit of tax deducted at source and treated the levy of\ninterest under sections 234B and 234C as consequential.\n10. Aggrieved

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

iii) First American (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1762/Bang/2019) Allegis Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1693 /Bang/ 2019) Ld. Counsel further submitted that if the intention was to deny deduction of CSR expenses under section 80G, appropriate amendments on lines of section 37(1) should also have been made The Ruby Mills Limited under section 80G

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

capital gains on equity\nshares. The CIT(A) upheld the said addition and rejected the\ncontention that the same was assessable under a different head.\nThe CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow\ncorrect credit of tax deducted at source and treated the levy of\ninterest under sections 234B and 234C as consequential.\n10. Aggrieved

SOU DWARKABAI SHASTRI PATWARDHAN TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2025-26

iii) of the Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. This will be the harmonious interpretation. 11. If we agree with the interpretation of the ld.CIT(E), then say a trust which was formed in the year 2000, performed charitable activities since 2000, but did not applied for registration u/s.80G, the said trust will never be able to apply

PRIYA KAPIL TODARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

III The appellant craves leave to add, modify, or delete any grounds of appeal.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is an individual deriving Income/loss from Business, Capital gain and income from other sources. The Return of income was filed on 25/10/2019 declaring total taxable 3 ITA 1838/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2019-20 Priya Kapil Todarwal income

SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession: (v) any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund created by him for the exclusive benefit of his employees under an irrevocable trust.” 7. Section 43B of the Act which reads as under: - Certain deductions to be only on actual

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI-400021 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

iii) Capital Gains; (iv) Income from other sources. (v) Profits & Gains of business (Section 28 to 43B) ITA. Nos. 927,957, 983,1021, 1074 & 1339/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Apart from above, the provisions of section 44 would also override provisions of section 199 relating to credit of tax deducted for the purpose of computation

MAHANSARIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, MUMBAI-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

iii. Naik Seafoods Pvt Ltd. v/s. PCIT [(Ι.Τ.Α. Νο 490/Mum/2021)] iv. FDC Ltd. v/s. PCIT [(2023) 157 Taxmann.com 387 (Mum.)] v. Societe Generale Securities India (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT [(2023) 157 taxmann.com 533 (Mum - Trib)] vi. Synergia Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT [(I.T.A. No 938/Mum/2023)] vii. Sikka Ports & Terminals Limited vs. PCIT [(Ι.Τ.Α. No 1865/Mum/2024)] viii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

iii) to perform such other functions and festivals as may be decided by the Board of Management. 25 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). iv) to give aids to the poor and deserving at Shirdi provided donations are received" Specifically in that behalf (and for no other purpose) and also to give necessary

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

iii) to perform such other functions and festivals as may be decided by the Board of Management. 25 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). iv) to give aids to the poor and deserving at Shirdi provided donations are received" Specifically in that behalf (and for no other purpose) and also to give necessary

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

iii) to perform such other functions and festivals as may be decided by the Board of Management. 25 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). iv) to give aids to the poor and deserving at Shirdi provided donations are received" Specifically in that behalf (and for no other purpose) and also to give necessary

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

iii) to perform such other functions and festivals as may be decided by the Board of Management. 25 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). iv) to give aids to the poor and deserving at Shirdi provided donations are received" Specifically in that behalf (and for no other purpose) and also to give necessary

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

capital, employer contribution to provident fund, gratuity\nand payment of security transaction tax,\nIncome Tax Act, under Section 80G, forming part of Chapter VIA,\nprovides for deductions for computing taxable income as under:\nSection 80G(2) provides for sums expended by an assessee as\ndonations against which deduction is available.\na) Certain donations, give_100% deduction, without any qualifying\nlimit

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

capital, employer contribution to provident fund, gratuity\nand payment of security transaction tax,\nIncome Tax Act, under section 80G, forming part of Chapter VIA,\nprovides for deductions for computing taxable income as under:\nSection 80G(2) provides for sums expended by an assessee as\ndonations against which deduction is available.\na) Certain donations, give_100% deduction, without any qualifying\nlimit

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITEIS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

capital expenditure. Apart from the decisions rendered by the\nTribunal in assessee's own case, the assessee also placed reliance upon the\ndecision of the special bench of the Tribunal in Biocon Ltd. v/s DCIT (ITA No.\n248/Bang/2010).\n6.\nThe Assessing Officer (“AO\") vide draft assessment order dated\n27/04/2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2026-27

iii) of the Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. This will be the harmonious interpretation. 11. If we agree with the interpretation of the ld.CIT(E), then say a trust which was formed in the year 2000, performed charitable activities since 2000, but did not apply for registration u/s.80G, the said trust will never be able to apply

BHARAT SERUMS AND VACCINES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarbharat Serums & V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaccines Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 15(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra 400708, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb2431M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

iii) Assessing Officer's order is in violation of the principle of natural justice, or (iv) if the order is passed by the AO without application of mind. (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; because AO has to discharge dual role of an investigator as well as that of an adjudicator then in aforesaid