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)

2. Income as computed u/s - 143(1)(a) 3. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance u/s 14A 4. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance-insurance expense claimed u/s 36 5. Total Income determined as per Rs. 149,11,76,360/- the above proposal The assessment is made u/s 143(3) read with section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of shares of\nprivate companies only but not to “any property” as mentioned in the\nsection 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Further, the non-applicability\nclause is also very clear in both the sections. Beside the above,\nthe explanation applicable for section 56(2)(via) of the Act is only\nrelated to “fair market value” as described

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.

143(1) in respect of disallowance of Rs. 1, 05,193/- on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees' contribution for the provident fund, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2015, determining the total income at ₹51,19,60,630/ 29.03.2015, determining the total income at 51,19,60,630/-, after making various additions and disallowances as set out in the making various additions and disallowances as set out in the making various additions and disallowances as set out in the assessment order

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

2. GROUND NO. 2: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES 2. GROUND NO. 2: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES 2. GROUND NO. 2: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,01,53,779/ AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,01,53,779/-: 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

2. GROUND NO. 2: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES 2. GROUND NO. 2: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES 2. GROUND NO. 2: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,01,53,779/ AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,01,53,779/-: 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances

JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

143(1), disallowing disallowing disallowing amounts amounts amounts accumulated under Section 11 (1 )(a), Section 11(2), and capital accumulated

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

disallowance of the deduction, it appears that the tion, it appears that the adjustment was made by invoking clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a), adjustment was made by invoking clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a), adjustment was made by invoking clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a), taking the view that the return was not filed within

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 under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under

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

2)", "Section 142(1)", "Section 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

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands\ndismissed as infructuous

disallowance of\nvarious expenses made in the assessment order. If the delay is\nnot condoned, the appellant shall be highly prejudiced as\nsubstantial additions and demand will be confirmed without\naffording the appellant a sufficient opportunity to present it's\ncase.\n13. In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay of 94 days\nin filing the appeal

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA (E- VIJAYA BANK), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

2. The assessee is a nationalized bank in which majority of the shares are held by Government of India. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 28.09.2018 admitting nil income and the said return was revised on 30.03.2019 where the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 12,47,444/-. In the mean time in accordance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

143 taxmann.com 278 (SC): taxmann.com 278 (SC): “5.23 In view of the above discussi 5.23 In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that on, we are of the opinion that assessee is not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as far assessee is not hit by the proviso to section 2