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

115P", "Section 111A", "Section 112A", "Section 234D", "Section 244A", "Section 199", "Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962"], "issues": "The appeals involve multiple assessment years and grounds, including challenges to disallowances

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

115P", "Sec 111A", "Sec 112A", "Sec 199", "Rule 37BA", "Sec 234D", "Sec 244A", "Sec 154" ], "issues": "The key issues involved are the allowability of provision for leave encashment, deduction under section 80G for CSR expenditure, correct computation of TDS credit, taxability of short-term capital gains, and various other disallowances

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of INR.83,93,835/- made under section 14A of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. The Assessee also raised following grounds before the CIT(A) challenging the variation from

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of INR.83,93,835/- made under section 14A of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. The Assessee also raised following grounds before the CIT(A) challenging the variation from

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

disallowances where facts supported the assessee.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "143(3)", "144B", "80G", "36(1)(va)", "40(a)(ia)", "43B", "234B", "234C", "270A", "115P

SULPHUR MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

115P as infructuious, as the same is not mentioned in the Assessment Order. The same be considered. Without prejudice to 2 (a) above the assessing officer has not given any opportunity for the levy of said interest and hence is bad in law. Without prejudice to 2 (a) and (b) above the assessee has delayed only for one day from

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

115P of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act 23. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234B of the Act: Charging of interest under section 234C of the Act 24. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234C of the Act, Charging of interest under section 234D of the Act 25. erred

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

115P of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act 23. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234B of the Act: Charging of interest under section 234C of the Act 24. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234C of the Act, Charging of interest under section 234D of the Act 25. erred

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

115P of the Act. Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act 23. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234B of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234C of the Act 24. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234C of the Act. M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India Charging of interest under section 234D

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

115P of the Act. Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act 23. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234B of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234C of the Act 24. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234C of the Act. M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India Charging of interest under section 234D

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

115P of the Act. Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act 23. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234B of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234C of the Act 24. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234C of the Act. M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India Charging of interest under section 234D

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

disallowance of employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, while processing the return, the same amount was again added by CPC. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee did not get relief from the learned CIT(A). 7.1 We heard the parties on this issue. It is well settled proposition that same income cannot be taxed

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

disallowance of employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, while processing the return, the same amount was again added by CPC. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee did not get relief from the learned CIT(A). 7.1 We heard the parties on this issue. It is well settled proposition that same income cannot be taxed

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

disallowance of employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, while processing the return, the same amount was again added by CPC. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee did not get relief from the learned CIT(A). 7.1 We heard the parties on this issue. It is well settled proposition that same income cannot be taxed

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

115P of the Act is deleted. 37. Ground No. 6 On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming charging in interest under Section 234B, 234C &234D of the Income tax- Act, 1961. 38. Ground No. 6 pertains to levy of interest under section 234A/B/C/D of the Act, and is, therefore, disposed

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

115P", "234C", "234B", "270A", "139(1)", "135 of the Companies Act, 2013", "Chapter VIA" ], "issues": "The primary issues involved were transfer pricing adjustments (later withdrawn), disallowance of ESOP expenses, disallowance of various business expenditures, eligibility for deductions under section

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

115P of the Act be deleted.” 3. The learned AO is aggrieved and is in appeal before us in ITA No.41/MUM/2021 raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in determining value of the shares of ABCL at ₹ 145.40 per share instead

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

115P of the Act be deleted.” 3. The learned AO is aggrieved and is in appeal before us in ITA No.41/MUM/2021 raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in determining value of the shares of ABCL at ₹ 145.40 per share instead

MAQUET MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

115P which is consequential, after giving credit to the Dividend Distribution Tax actually paid in accordance with law. 12. Ground No.2 is with regard to the addition made by the AO towards mismatch between form 26AS and the return of income. The AO during the course of assessment noticed that there are some discrepancies between the receipts appearing in Form