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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

section 28 of the Act, Revenue ought to have taxed the broken Period interest received but at the same time ought to have allowed deduction for the broken period interest paid. 21. As already noticed above, this decision of the Bombay High Court has found favour with the Supreme Court in Citibank NA (supra) where Supreme Court agreed with

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

section 80G cannot be denied merely on the ground that the payment also formed part of CSR expenditure under the Companies Act. 116. Accordingly, we hold that the disallowance

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act. As per settled law the concept of income includes a loss i. e. negative income or zero i. e. nil income. As per matching principle, there can be positive receipt resulting into positive income or loss or nil income. Similarly, from a source there can be nil receipt which may result into loss

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 4: Write-back of creditors 32. In respect of deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer, the learned DR relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee had written back sundry creditors amounting

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

disallowance u/s 14A was made by the Assessing Officer while computing the total income of the assessee company. Accordingly, he issued notice u/s. 263 of the Act. In response assessee filed the following submissions: “1. During the financial year under consideration, the company transferred its vehicle financing portfolios MGB (Manufacturer Guaranteed Business) and UVFB (Used Vehicle Financing Business) under

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

disallowance. He held that, notwithstanding the actuarial basis of the provision, deduction for leave encashment is governed by section 43B(f) of the Act and is allowable only on actual payment basis. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd.(116

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

disallowance. He held that, notwithstanding the actuarial basis of the provision, deduction for leave encashment is governed by section 43B(f) of the Act and is allowable only on actual payment basis. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd.(116

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

disallowance. He held that, notwithstanding the actuarial basis of the provision, deduction for leave encashment is governed by section 43B(f) of the Act and is allowable only on actual payment basis. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd.(116

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

section 80HHC of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the profit earned by valuing finished goods is notional imaginary profit which could not be taxed. In view of the above, it is argued that appreciation in value of investments cannot be taken into account. The netting off of appreciation against the depreciation within a classification is therefore contrary

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

disallowance. He held that, notwithstanding the actuarial basis of the provision, deduction for leave encashment is governed by section 43B(f) of the Act and is allowable only on actual payment basis. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd.(116

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can arise [Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.: [2020] 116

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can arise [Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.: [2020] 116

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

116\n(Guj.) upheld the deletion of disallowance made under section 14A read with\nRule 8D of the Rules, as no exempt

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can arise [Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.: [2020] 116

ARSHIYA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7177 & 7178/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2010–11) M/S Arshiya Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of 302, Level–3, Ceejay House, Income, Circle-21(2)(5) F–Block, Shiv Sagar Estate,Dr. Room No. 116, 1 St Floor, बनाम/ Annie Besant Road, Worli, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 012 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaaci2679A अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Navnit Choudhary, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Dr सुनवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 घोर्णा की िारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2020 आदेश / O R D E R शक्तिजीि डे, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Saktijit Dey, Jm:

116, 1 st Floor, बनाम/ Annie Besant Road, Worli, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 012 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AAACI2679A अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Navnit Choudhary, AR प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Michael Jerald, DR सुनवाई की िारीख / Date of hearing: 11.02.2020 घोर्णा की िारीख / Date

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

116\nITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) 11\n(Guj.) upheld the deletion of disallowance made under section 14A read

IL&FS MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 5 of the Act is on real income and there is no sanction in law for the assessment of admittedly notional income, particularly in the context of effecting disallowance in connection therewith. Page 9 ITA No.3558/Mum/2023 IL & FS Maritime Infrastructure Company Ltd. Vs. The DCIT, 14(1)(1) 2.25 Therefore, based on the above provisions

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. 113. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ITA No. 17/Mum./2011 ITA no.1650/Mum./2016 ITA no.1054/Mum./2016 114. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As we have restored