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

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

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

23 - (ITA No. 6702/Mum/2025)\nGround No. I - Disallowance of employees' contribution to\nProvident Fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

23. On merits it is noticed that in assessee's case the Employees’ contributions for Provident Fund and ESI has been deposited after the due date, as prescribed in the respective statutes, which resulted into making the disallowance/addition of Rs. 27,58,890/- u/s. 36(1) (va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex

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

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

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

disallowance to the suo-moto disallowance offered by the assessee and the\nsaid relief has not been considered by the CIT (A). 4. The Id. AR with regard to the plea that\ndisallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance, submitted that the\nassessee has investments which are in the nature of stock in trade and also are strategic

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

23 and 2023–24. In the\ncourse of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer\nexamined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G\nin respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to\nprovident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023

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)

23. On perusal of the above it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was aware of the fact that return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act vide an intimation order dated 25/12/2021. Income of the Assessee has been computed to INR.1,54,62,92,300/-. Despite the aforesaid the Assessing Officer concludes the assessment

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)

23. On perusal of the above it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was aware of the fact that return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act vide an intimation order dated 25/12/2021. Income of the Assessee has been computed to INR.1,54,62,92,300/-. Despite the aforesaid the Assessing Officer concludes the assessment

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)

23. On perusal of the above it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was aware of the fact that return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act vide an intimation order dated 25/12/2021. Income of the Assessee has been computed to INR.1,54,62,92,300/-. Despite the aforesaid the Assessing Officer concludes the assessment

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 270A. Therefore no penalty can be levied d. The appellant contends that the levy of penalty on addition on account of deemed rent u/s 23(1) r.w.s 23(4) is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and needs to be deleted. Ground of Appeal No.2: Levy of penalty on Disallowance of Employees contribution towards PF and ESIC

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 270A. Therefore no penalty can be levied d. The appellant contends that the levy of penalty on addition on account of deemed rent u/s 23(1) r.w.s 23(4) is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and needs to be deleted. Ground of Appeal No.2: Levy of penalty on Disallowance of Employees contribution towards PF and ESIC

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).

va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out-goings forming part of the assessees' liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these alone entitle

DRISHTI LIFESAVING PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd. Top Floor, Mehta, Mahal, Cpc, 15, Mathew Road, Vs. Benaluru-560600 Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcd0528C

23,527,317. In intimation under section 143 (1) of the income tax act dated 7/5/2020 the sum was recomputed at ₹ 34,113,335. According to the statement of the assessee the disallowance is with respect to the payment of ₹ 10,544,018/– being employees contribution of provident fund and ESI deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the provident

MARKOLINES INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 15(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 22. Further, we find that recently the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in Rohan Korgaonkar Vs. DCIT, [2024] 159 taxmann.com 321 (Bom.), after considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inCheckmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

disallowed in the draft assessment order. Against the draft Against the draft assessment order, the assessment order, the assessee filed objections before DRP. DR filed objections before DRP. DRP also rejected the Appellant's claim vide directions dated 13th also rejected the Appellant's claim vide directions dated also rejected the Appellant's claim vide directions dated December

PRAVIN MALSHI SHAH,MUM vs. CIRCLE-23(1), MUM

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

23(1) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 13/174, Dadi Sheth Agiyari Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 40002 PAN: AAQPS3856E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Ashok Mehta Shri Pratap Narayan Sharma Department Represented by : Date of Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders

PRAVIN MALSHI SHAH,MUM vs. CIRCLE-23(1), MUM

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

23(1) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 13/174, Dadi Sheth Agiyari Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 40002 PAN: AAQPS3856E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Ashok Mehta Shri Pratap Narayan Sharma Department Represented by : Date of Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders

MARUTI RAMU LANDE ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASTT. DIRECTOR O INCOME TAX, CPC, BENLURU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemaruti Ramu Lande V. The Asst. Director Of Income-Tax Cpc, Bangalore Flat No. 5L, 5Th Floor Karnataka - 560100 B. Wing, Siddhivinayak Towers Near Runwal Nagar Thane (W) – 400601 Pan: Adjpl1772E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Shreyas Shah & Shri Kunal Shah Department Represented By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai

va) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 3. The Assessee in the return of income filed on 13.02.2021 had declared total income of ₹.23,37,240/-. The said return was processed online by CPC Bangalore and accordingly, adjustment of ₹.14,48,022/- was made in the intimation u/s.143(1) on account of late payment of employee contribution towards