DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

disallowance can be made u/s 37 of the Act. made u/s 37 of the Act.” 7.2 Before us, the Ld. Counsel Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee submitted that firstly section 40A(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 ()

2) clearly delineates two distinct the statutory scheme. Rule 8D(2) clearly delineates two distinct the statutory scheme. Rule 8D(2) clearly delineates two distinct categories of expenditure: categories of expenditure: (i) direct expenditure direct expenditure, including direct interest expenditure, , including direct interest expenditure, incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income, which must be for the purpose of earning

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

2 to section 37(1) reflects the legislative intent to disallow CSR as a section 37(1) reflects the legislative

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

2 to section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, there is no correlation between suomoto disallowance in section 37(1) and claim

DENTSU AEGIS NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(ERSTWHILE VIZEUM MEDIA SERVICE INDIA MERGED IN DAN INDIA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardentsu Aegis Network Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Vizeum Media Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Service India Merged Maharashi Karve With Dentsu Aegis Marg, Mumbai-400 Network India Private 020 Limited W.E.F. 1St April 2017) 2Nd Floor, Devchand House, Dr. A. B. Road, Shiv Sagar Estate Mumbai, Worli So, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aahca3058N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) and under section 37(1) read with section 40A(2)(b). The CIT(A) confirmed

AXIS SECURITIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain(Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Am) Axis Securities Limited Pcit-4 Unit 002A & 002B, Agastya Room No. 629 Corporate Park, Pirmal Realty Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kamani Junction, Kurla-W M.K. Road Mumbai-400 070. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aabce6263F Appellant Respondent

37 of the Act read with Explanation 2 thereof, amount of Rs. 1,93,66,947'/- classified as CSR expense was suo moto disallowed by the Appellant in the return of income (Refer Computation of Income at Page 2 of the Paper book). 5. In the return of income, the Appellant claimed deduction of Rs. 96,83,474/- under Section

MAHANSARIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, MUMBAI-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

2 to Section 37(1) of the Act nugatory and would effectively nullify the specific disallowance legislated by the Parliament

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

37,434/-. (ii) The ld.AO has recomputed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. The ld.AO has accepted the amount liable for disallowance under clause 2

INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI vs. IDBI STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

disallowing the claim made by the assessee U/s.\n80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We have perused the ratio laid down by the\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Totgars Cooperative Sale Society\nLtd (supra) and found that in that case the society is engaged in\nmarketing of the agricultural produce by its members

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

Section 14A of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the aforesaid sou motu disallowance offered by the Assessee and computed aggregate disallowance as per Rule 8D at INR 71.81 Crores consisting of disallowance of INR 3.65 Crores under Rule 8D(2)(i), INR 39.10 Crores under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and INR 29.06 Crores under Rule 8D(2

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance in terms of Explanation 1 to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. As stated earlier, undisputedly, reinsurers to whom assessee had made payment, does not have any place of business or branch in India. So, even after 26/12/2014, the amended definition of Section 2

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENDUS CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jcit (Osd)-14(1)(1), M/S Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, 901, Platina, 9Th Floor, Plot No. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C59, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aabcc 2404 Q Appellant Respondent

2) and section 37(1) of and section 37(1) of the Act, the term ‘expenditure expenditure’ should refer not only to the amounts should refer not only to the amounts actually paid but also any obligation incurred in relation to the actually paid but also any obligation incurred in relation to the actually paid but also any obligation incurred

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

37,434/-. (ii) The ld.AO has recomputed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. The ld.AO has accepted the amount liable for disallowance under clause 2

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

37,434/-. (ii) The ld.AO has recomputed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. The ld.AO has accepted the amount liable for disallowance under clause 2

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

2 to section 37(1) and the provisions of section 80G, and had mechanically allowed the claim without proper verification. On this premise, it was concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 26. Before the learned Principal Commissioner, the assessee had categorically submitted that it had already disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

disallowed under section 37(1), can nevertheless qualify for\ndeduction under section 80G, provided other statutory conditions\nare fulfilled. Section 37(1), read with Explanation 2

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

disallowed under Section 37(1), can nevertheless qualify for\ndeduction under Section 80G, provided other statutory conditions\nare fulfilled. Section 37(1), read with Explanation 2

ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

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 Amount rupees number 1 Transportation charges under section 37 ₹ 4,435,916 2 Hiring charges under section 37 ₹ 6,302,742 3 Unproved