STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

disallowance is made is that the interest from eligible business which is the basis for computing the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) is not substantiated by the assessee. The ld. DR further submitted that the eligible business has been defined under the Act and therefore the income which is claimed by the assessee as derived from the eligible State

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

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

disallowance is made is that the interest from eligible business which is the basis for computing the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) is not substantiated by the assessee. The ld. DR further submitted that the eligible business has been defined under the Act and therefore the income which is claimed by the assessee as derived from the eligible State

SHRI TEJINDERSINGH S ANAND,MUMBAI vs. ADIT CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of Rs.1,31,372, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) and Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) under section 36(1

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

disallowed these provisions on the basis that the same cannot be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act and the provisions of section 43B of the Act are applicable. 31

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

1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, 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 () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

disallowed and corresponding adjustment was made in order passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and claimed that in view of decision

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer

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

31,072/- in respect of\ndonations made to eligible trusts. The Assessing Officer was of\nthe view that allowing deduction under section 80G would result\nin double deduction of CSR expenditure. The explanation of the\nassessee that CSR expenditure had already been disallowed\nunder section 37(1

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of the Act and disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29. The ld. Counsel

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of the Act and disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29. The ld. Counsel

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of the Act and disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29. The ld. Counsel

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of the Act and disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29. The ld. Counsel

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of the Act and disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29. The ld. Counsel

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of the Act and disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D are deleted for parity of reasons. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 6473/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Department’s Appeal) ITA No. 6480/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 (Assessee’s Appeal) 29. The ld. Counsel

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

1,45,31,43,595 Disallowance under section 14A @ 1% Disallowance under section 14A @ 1% 1,45,31,436 1

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

1,160,35,01,455/- in the normal computation of total income and further same was also added to the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. iii. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets of ₹27,31

JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1) of the Act. 139(1) of the Act. 6.5 In the present case, the appellant submitted Form 10B on In the present case, the appellant submitted Form 10B on In the present case, the appellant submitted Form 10B on November 29, 2023, while th November 29, 2023, while the deadline for filing Form 10B was e deadline

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

31. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we have noted that the Assessing Officer has extensively examined the compliance with the requirements of Section 11(5) and Section13(1)(d) of the Act. Vide letter dated 2nd December 2016, the Assessing Officer specifically asked the assessee “whether any investment of the trust for last three years