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

II – Employees' contribution to PF under section\n36(1)(va) of Rs. 41,05,801/-\n50. We also have already adjudicated the issue relating to\ndeduction under section 80G while deciding the corresponding\nground for A.Y. 2017–18. Since the facts and the applicable legal\nprinciples for the year under consideration are identical, we do\nnot consider it necessary

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

II – Employees' contribution to PF under section\n36(1)(va) of Rs. 41,05,801/-\n50. We also have already adjudicated the issue relating to\ndeduction under section 80G while deciding the corresponding\nground for A.Y. 2017–18. Since the facts and the applicable legal\nprinciples for the year under consideration are identical, we do\nnot consider it necessary

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

II – Employees' contribution to PF under section\n36(1)(va) of Rs. 41,05,801/-\n50. We also have already adjudicated the issue relating to\ndeduction under section 80G while deciding the corresponding\nground for A.Y. 2017–18. Since the facts and the applicable legal\nprinciples for the year under consideration are identical, we do\nnot consider it necessary

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

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(1)(a) thus permits the processing of the income tax return in the manner that the total income or loss of the assessee is computed after making the adjustments for (i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(1)(a) thus permits the processing of the income tax return in the manner that the total income or loss of the assessee is computed after making the adjustments for (i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. 10. The claim for deduction for the „Provision

H.B. GUM INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 20.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13\nwherein disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act of Rs.35 lakh was confirmed\nand appeal was dismissed.\n2. The brief facts as culled out from proceedings before the lower\nauthorities are that the appellant is a private

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)

ii) in respect of which, information required to be furnished to substantiate such entry, has not been furnished under this Act; and (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. Thus, the scope of newly substituted Section 143(1) was limited

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)

ii) in respect of which, information required to be furnished to substantiate such entry, has not been furnished under this Act; and (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. Thus, the scope of newly substituted Section 143(1) was limited

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)

ii) in respect of which, information required to be furnished to substantiate such entry, has not been furnished under this Act; and (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. Thus, the scope of newly substituted Section 143(1) was limited

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

ii) of clause (a) of f clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, the quantum of deduction claimed by the appellant could not be the quantum

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

disallowances.", "held": "The Tribunal held that goodwill, distribution network, and customer relations, acquired as part of the amalgamation, qualify as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the depreciation

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.

section 143(1) (a) of the Act is relevant and again reproduced herein below as under: (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance

THE PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance made under section 143(1)(a)(ii) justified. The ld. DR submitted that explanation to section 143(1) defines

JOYO PLASTICS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

disallowable under section 37(1) of the Act, thus the AO was not authorised to invoke section 37(1) of the Act, thus the AO was not authorised to invoke section 37(1) of the Act, thus the AO was not authorised to invoke section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. section 143(1

DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX-17(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA STATE SECURITY CORPORATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return‘ 8. Sub-section (1) of section 143

DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX-17(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA STATE SECURITY CORPORATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return‘ 8. Sub-section (1) of section 143

BALRAJSINGH JAGJITSINGH KHARBANDA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Balrajsinghjagjitsingh Adit, Cpc Bangalore, Kharbanda, Cpc, Bangalore-560500. C/3, Ravi Darshan, Sherly Vs. Rajan Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Adhpk 1733 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh S. Kothari Revenue By : Kamble Minal Mohan, Dr : Date Of Hearing 05/06/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 07/06/2023 Order

disallowance of club membership fee club membership fee as capital expenditure u/s as capital expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act isa 37(1) of the Act isa debatable issue ,therefore, the Ld. CPC is not therefore, the Ld. CPC is not justified in making adjustment invoking section 143(1)(a) of the Act. justified in making adjustment invoking section