APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

149(1)(b) in the absence of any income escaped assessment represented in the form of "asset" 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated March 17, 2023 issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the Ld. AO is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

149(1)(b) in the absence of any income escaped assessment represented in the form of "asset" 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated March 17, 2023 issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the Ld. AO is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed

ACIT-15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURYA FERROUS ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of purchases to 4% an account of bogus purchases without considering the fact that during the course of search, the entry provider has himself admitted that assessee company has been provided accommodation entries for claiming bogus expenses to deflate the profit thereby the profit thereby evading income tax. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cause

VIPENDRA RAVINDRA MANDAL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

149(1)(A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly considering the interpretation of the law and judicial decisions relied by the appellant. Vipendra Ravindra Mandal Vipendra Ravindra Mandal 2. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in 2. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in 2. The learned

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

149/- 13. The learned AR fairly conceded that in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518, the issue now stands decided against the assessee. 14. In view of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no infirmity in the action

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

149/- 13. The learned AR fairly conceded that in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518, the issue now stands decided against the assessee. 14. In view of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no infirmity in the action

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

149/- 13. The learned AR fairly conceded that in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518, the issue now stands decided against the assessee. 14. In view of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no infirmity in the action

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

149/- 13. The learned AR fairly conceded that in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518, the issue now stands decided against the assessee. 14. In view of the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find no infirmity in the action

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KALPANA MADHANI SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit-14(1)(1) M/S. Kalpana Madhani R. No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Securities Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 11/1102, Shanti Tower, Shanti Mumbai-400 020 Path, Near Garodia Nagar, Mumbai-400 077 Pan: Aabck2968H

disallowed against business income. 3. The assessee challenged the said order in appeal and vide order dated 15.01.2018, the appellate authority decided in favour of the assessee holding that the transactions forms part of explanation to section 73 of the Income Tax Act and was falling under the Business and Profession. The case was reopened in the year

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

disallow the deduction to 10% of rural advances of ₹122.30 crores which were not rural branches ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 vi. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act of ₹138,52,06,494/- which should have been restricted to ₹961,47,93,509/- being 20% of allowable deduction. vii. Excess allowances of long-term

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance on merits. The learned CIT(A), however, upheld the reopening, invoking The learned CIT(A), however, upheld the reopening, invoking The learned CIT(A), however, upheld the reopening, invoking Explanation 1 to section 148 and opining that audit objections Explanation 1 to section 148 and opining that audit objections Explanation 1 to section 148 and opining that audit objections

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)

b) deleting the disallowance of INR.5,28,85,289/- made under Section 43B of the Act on account of payment of bonus or commission and (c) granting credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS. Being AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal

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)

b) deleting the disallowance of INR.5,28,85,289/- made under Section 43B of the Act on account of payment of bonus or commission and (c) granting credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS. Being AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal

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)

b) deleting the disallowance of INR.5,28,85,289/- made under Section 43B of the Act on account of payment of bonus or commission and (c) granting credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS. Being AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

149(1) of the Act, and thus, the re-assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act is void ab initio. 8. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual and advocate by profession. For the year under consideration, the assessee

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

1) shall be deemed to have been executed,— (a) in the case of search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued;” 2.17. Thus, the search will be deemed to be concluded on the basis of last panchnama drawn in relation

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

B = not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the 7 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year ; the average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the C = assessee, on the first day and the last