M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

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

depreciation is not sustainable. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b)- Ground No.2 7

ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

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

depreciation is not sustainable. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b)- Ground No.2 7

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

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

depreciation is not sustainable. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b)- Ground No.2 7

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

b. Specific provision of sections 36(1)(iv)/36(1)(v) and 40A(7)/40A(9) of the Act are applicable to the pension liability. Further, the same should only be allowed on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act. Hence, a general provision like section 37(1) of the Act cannot apply. 18. We noted that

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

b. Specific provision of sections 36(1)(iv)/36(1)(v) and 40A(7)/40A(9) of the Act are applicable to the pension liability. Further, the same should only be allowed on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act. Hence, a general provision like section 37(1) of the Act cannot apply. 18. We noted that

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

b. Specific provision of sections 36(1)(iv)/36(1)(v) and 40A(7)/40A(9) of the Act are applicable to the pension liability. Further, the same should only be allowed on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act. Hence, a general provision like section 37(1) of the Act cannot apply. 18. We noted that

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation on additions to computers and software expenses and allow the claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file the relevant documents and evidences as may be called for and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability – Ground No.4 in assessee's appeal State Bank

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation on additions to computers and software expenses and allow the claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file the relevant documents and evidences as may be called for and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability – Ground No.4 in assessee's appeal State Bank

KPMG ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeita No. 5395/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ita No. 5393/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/S. Kpmg Advisory Services Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, 2Nd Floor, Block T2 (B Wing), Mumbai Vs. Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N. M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai

Depreciation 2,286.36 237.68 Insurance-General 25.57 2.66 Total 10,185.59 1058.85 4. The assessee also submitted that the amount has been recovered on cost to cost basis and on the same basis as has been charged to other sub-licensees whose relationship with KPMG was not covered within the meaning of section 40A(2)(b

KPMG ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeita No. 5395/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ita No. 5393/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/S. Kpmg Advisory Services Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, 2Nd Floor, Block T2 (B Wing), Mumbai Vs. Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N. M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai

Depreciation 2,286.36 237.68 Insurance-General 25.57 2.66 Total 10,185.59 1058.85 4. The assessee also submitted that the amount has been recovered on cost to cost basis and on the same basis as has been charged to other sub-licensees whose relationship with KPMG was not covered within the meaning of section 40A(2)(b

KPMG ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeita No. 5395/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ita No. 5393/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/S. Kpmg Advisory Services Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, 2Nd Floor, Block T2 (B Wing), Mumbai Vs. Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N. M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai

Depreciation 2,286.36 237.68 Insurance-General 25.57 2.66 Total 10,185.59 1058.85 4. The assessee also submitted that the amount has been recovered on cost to cost basis and on the same basis as has been charged to other sub-licensees whose relationship with KPMG was not covered within the meaning of section 40A(2)(b

KPMG ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeita No. 5395/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ita No. 5393/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/S. Kpmg Advisory Services Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, 2Nd Floor, Block T2 (B Wing), Mumbai Vs. Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N. M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai

Depreciation 2,286.36 237.68 Insurance-General 25.57 2.66 Total 10,185.59 1058.85 4. The assessee also submitted that the amount has been recovered on cost to cost basis and on the same basis as has been charged to other sub-licensees whose relationship with KPMG was not covered within the meaning of section 40A(2)(b

KPMG ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeita No. 5395/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ita No. 5393/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/S. Kpmg Advisory Services Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, 2Nd Floor, Block T2 (B Wing), Mumbai Vs. Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N. M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai

Depreciation 2,286.36 237.68 Insurance-General 25.57 2.66 Total 10,185.59 1058.85 4. The assessee also submitted that the amount has been recovered on cost to cost basis and on the same basis as has been charged to other sub-licensees whose relationship with KPMG was not covered within the meaning of section 40A(2)(b

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

40A(2)(b) at the rate of 18% without considering the above facts. According to him the Assessing Officer was expected to verify the reasons for paying interest to persons specified u/s.40A(2)(b) at the rate higher than prevailing in the market. The Assessing Officer failed to consider this point and did not make expected verification in this regard

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench