PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

disallowance under section 40 A (3) of the act with respect to the purchases of the material. The assessee’s claim is that there is no cash payment made by the assessee which is in violation of the provisions of section 40 A (3) of the act and the learned departmental representative has categorically relied upon the orders

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance can be made u/s 14A while computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB of the computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o Act. The ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee are he ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowance can be made u/s 14A while computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB of the computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o Act. The ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee are he ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

3) r/w section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has repeated the disallowance under section 80IA of the Act on the very same reasoning on which it was disallowed in the original assessment order. He 16 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. submitted, in the course of search and seizure operation no incriminating material whatsoever was found from the assessee. He submitted

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) of the Act as made in the assessment order.” 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected u/s 145(3) for AY 2009-10 and submitted that there is no dispute as to the rejection of books of accounts by the authorities below . The assessee took

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI 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) of the Act as made in the assessment order.” 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected u/s 145(3) for AY 2009-10 and submitted that there is no dispute as to the rejection of books of accounts by the authorities below . The assessee took

LATE SHRI MOHAN RAJ CHHAJED (THROUGH LEGAL JEOR SHANTILAL CHHAJED),MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Through Legal Heir Shantilal Pali Rajasthan-306-401. Chhajed), Vs. 601, Shilpa Apartments, C.D. Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaipc 6614 N Appellant Respondent

section 44AD of the Act cannot be accepted. cannot be accepted. While Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed 16 making addition, the gross profit rate declared by the assessee in making addition, the gross profit rate declared by the assessee in making addition, the gross profit rate declared by the assessee in preceding assessment year

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).

disallowance and held that the provision of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in the case.” 8.1. During the course of hearing the Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, stated that the Assessee does not wish to pursue this ground since relief has been granted to the assessee in relation to this ground in appellate proceedings pertaining to the preceding

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

17,01,72,850/- 8,44,58,08,730/- 7,48,99,79,434/- income Date of 26.12.2019 14.04.2021 28.02.2024 21.03.2025 assessment order Assessed Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. total 3,34,76,51,568/- 4,20,47,45,482/- 8,45,13,02,470/- 7,49,13,26,247/- income 6. In A.Y. 2017-18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees

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

17,01,72,850/- 8,44,58,08,730/- 7,48,99,79,434/- income Date of 26.12.2019 14.04.2021 28.02.2024 21.03.2025 assessment order Assessed Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. total 3,34,76,51,568/- 4,20,47,45,482/- 8,45,13,02,470/- 7,49,13,26,247/- income 6. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

17,01,72,850/- 8,44,58,08,730/- 7,48,99,79,434/- income Date of 26.12.2019 14.04.2021 28.02.2024 21.03.2025 assessment order Assessed Rs. total Rs. 3,34,76,51,568/- 4,20,47,45,482/- 8,45,13,02,470/- 7,49,13,26,247/- Rs. Rs. income 6. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

17,01,72,850/- Rs. 8,44,58,08,730/- Rs. 7,48,99,79,434/- Date of assessment order 26.12.2019 14.04.2021 28.02.2024 21.03.2025 Assessed total income Rs. 3,34,76,51,568/- Rs. 4,20,47,45,482/- Rs. 8,45,13,02,470/- Rs. 7,49,13,26,247/- 6. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer disallowed

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

17 wherein disallowance under section 35 (2AB) of the act cannot be made on the basis of form number 3CL issued by DSIR. vi. The learned assessing officer also noted that the book profit shown by the assessee under section 115JB of ₹ 1,529,452,860 – which is also required to be increased by the disallowance on account of section

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

disallowing the payment of Rs.26,13,19,736 by\nthe Appellant to the Auto Dealers.\n5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO,\nwithout appreciating the fact that the year under\nconsideration was not the year for which order was\npassed by the Service Tax Department.\n6. The CIT(A) was wrong in observing that

SIROYA DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Siroya Developers Ito-17(3)(3)[Previously Assessed 101, Kingston Towers, With Acit-31(3)], Gd Ambekar Marg, Parel Tank Mumbai Road, Parel – East, Vs. Mumbai – 400 033

SECTION 40(b), The Board have been advised that while there is an express provision in s. 40(b) which expressly prohibits the deduction from the firm's income of any payment by way of interest made to a partner, there is no provision in the Act which provides for Siroya Developers Vs. ITO, 17(3)(3), Mumbai

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee held that mode of payment by crediting the Shri Renukamata Multi–State Co–operative Urban Credit Society Ltd. Cross Appeals for A.Ys. 2016–17

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee held that mode of payment by crediting the Shri Renukamata Multi–State Co–operative Urban Credit Society Ltd. Cross Appeals for A.Ys. 2016–17

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 ()

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

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

3) read with section 153A of the Act, came to the conclusion that the assessee is not a bank within the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and therefore is not empowered to carry on the business of banking. It was further held that the assessee is a credit co-operative society, which is empowered to mobilise deposits and grant