IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

disallowance u/s 40A(3)/40A(3A) as then AO is debarred from resorting to the same books of accounts. It was submitted that Section 40A(3)/40A(3A) is deeming provision of Income Tax wherein income is being computed by fiction . It was submitted that G.P rate is to be applied by A.O after invoking Section 145

M/S EDELWISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Edelweiss Rural & Acit Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Cgo Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakcs 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement ___/03/2023 Order

section 145 (3) of the Act and thus, we set aside the we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and delete finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute disallowance

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

3 to section 40(a)(ii), whereby it has been provided that the term 'tax' shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such tax. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JCIT Vs. Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd., [2022] 145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) allowed the Revenue

SIDDHARTH DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesiddharth Developers V. Acit – Central Circle – 5(3) 205 Commerce House Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor 140 N.M. Road, Fort Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400023 Pan: Abffs4068J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Salil Mishra

section 145(3) were not fulfilled in the present case. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in adjusting the Work in Progress (WIP) of the Chhotani Chawl Project of the Appellant by disallowing

ITO EXEMPTION 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

Section 145 deals having consistent method to minimise the possibility of unfair deductions or escaping chargeability under the Act?” 3. The issue arising in Grounds No.1 to 4 raised in Revenue’s appeal pertains to the deletion of disallowance

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,19,07,328/- (ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance

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] &

3 of the appeal of learned assessing officer is dismissed andground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 44) For assessment year 2007 – 08 ground number 4 is raised by the learned assessing officer which is also connected to ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 involving similar facts

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) allowed\nthe Revenue's appeal against the Hon'ble Rajasthan High\nCourt's decision in Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs.\nJC IT, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 484 (Raj.) and held that\neducation cess paid by the respondent assessee would not be\nallowed as an expenditure under Section 37 read with 40(a)(ii)\nof the Act. Therefore

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145/- reducing the value of Work in progress.” 26. The AO made disallowances/ additions of various expenses leading to reduction from work-in-progress balance transferred to M/s GM construction and the AO had computed the disallowances. The following are the disallowances computed by the AO as under: - Revised reduction from WIP balance is as under: No. Particulars Amount Relief

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145/- reducing the value of Work in progress.” 26. The AO made disallowances/ additions of various expenses leading to reduction from work-in-progress balance transferred to M/s GM construction and the AO had computed the disallowances. The following are the disallowances computed by the AO as under: - Revised reduction from WIP balance is as under: No. Particulars Amount Relief

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145/- reducing the value of Work in progress.” 26. The AO made disallowances/ additions of various expenses leading to reduction from work-in-progress balance transferred to M/s GM construction and the AO had computed the disallowances. The following are the disallowances computed by the AO as under: - Revised reduction from WIP balance is as under: No. Particulars Amount Relief

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145/- reducing the value of Work in progress.” 26. The AO made disallowances/ additions of various expenses leading to reduction from work-in-progress balance transferred to M/s GM construction and the AO had computed the disallowances. The following are the disallowances computed by the AO as under: - Revised reduction from WIP balance is as under: No. Particulars Amount Relief

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145/- reducing the value of Work in progress.” 26. The AO made disallowances/ additions of various expenses leading to reduction from work-in-progress balance transferred to M/s GM construction and the AO had computed the disallowances. The following are the disallowances computed by the AO as under: - Revised reduction from WIP balance is as under: No. Particulars Amount Relief

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145/- reducing the value of Work in progress.” 26. The AO made disallowances/ additions of various expenses leading to reduction from work-in-progress balance transferred to M/s GM construction and the AO had computed the disallowances. The following are the disallowances computed by the AO as under: - Revised reduction from WIP balance is as under: No. Particulars Amount Relief

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145/- reducing the value of Work in progress.” 26. The AO made disallowances/ additions of various expenses leading to reduction from work-in-progress balance transferred to M/s GM construction and the AO had computed the disallowances. The following are the disallowances computed by the AO as under: - Revised reduction from WIP balance is as under: No. Particulars Amount Relief

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145/- reducing the value of Work in progress.” 26. The AO made disallowances/ additions of various expenses leading to reduction from work-in-progress balance transferred to M/s GM construction and the AO had computed the disallowances. The following are the disallowances computed by the AO as under: - Revised reduction from WIP balance is as under: No. Particulars Amount Relief