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 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

section 143(1)(a)(ii) to make a disallowance CPC proposed under section 143(1)(a)(ii) to make a disallowance

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Our observations are with reference to scope of section 143(1) of the Act only

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

143(3) read with section 144B of the Act for A.Ys. 2018–19, 2022–23 and 2023–24. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees’ contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance

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

143(3)", "Section 144B", "Section 80G", "Section 36(1)(va)", "Section 40(a)(ia)", "Section 43B", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 270A", "Section 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

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of Rs.32,140, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143

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

143(3) read with section 144B of the Act for A.Ys. 2018–19, 2022–23 and 2023–24. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance

M/S. SUPER TILES & MARBLES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory

SWAROOPSING BHADURSINGH RATHORE,THANE vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory

SWAROOPSINGH BHADURSINGH RATHORE,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory

M/S PAPER RECYCLE ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory

BRILLPHARMA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC,BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of Rs.8,92,829, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) / Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143

SAVANI HERITAGE CONSERVATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory

M/S VAISHALI PHARMA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory

STG REFRACTORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI-400042 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, KARNATAKA-560500

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory

SURANA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory

MASTER POLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory

NILESH V. METHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 32(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowance under section 143(1) is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory