CHROMEX,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chromex, Dcit-17(1), 406, Konarkshram, 156, Pmm Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Vs. Road, Tardeo, West, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai. Pan No. Aabfc 4027 G Appellant Respondent

disallowance of deduction of Rs.26,25,000/ deduction of Rs.26,25,000/- claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act is claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act is confirmed. Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the ed. Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the ed. Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed

M/S CRESCENT ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1252 & 1253/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Crescent Organics Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Windsor,2Nd Floor, Cst Road, 14(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kalina,Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 098 Pan – Aaacc1690D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.R Respondent By: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.12.2020

35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of a donation given to a similarluy placed institution before them, viz. School of Human Genetics & Population Health had vacated the disallowance of the assesses claim for deduction under Sec.35(1)(ii) of the Act by observing as under: ―6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and gone through

POOJA HARDWARE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowing and adding Rs 1,75,00,000/ adding Rs 1,75,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee in to the total income of the assessee in respect of bogus donation to the said institute u/s 35(1)(ii) of respect of bogus donation to the said institute u/s 35(1)(ii) of respect of bogus donation

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

ii) that while computing the AAA under Rule 6ABA has taken into account even the advances made by certain Urban branches whereas only the advances made by Rural branches is to be considered. State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) 10. The CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of the assessee by accepting the contention

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

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

ii) that while computing the AAA under Rule 6ABA has taken into account even the advances made by certain Urban branches whereas only the advances made by Rural branches is to be considered. State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) 10. The CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of the assessee by accepting the contention

DCIT-CC-8(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SOPARIWALA EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Sopariwala Exports Private Ltd., 21St Floor, Nirmal Room No. 656, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Building, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

disallowed, whereas the assessee given donation to said institution amount of Rs.5,40,00,000/- only and claimed deduction Rs.9.45,00,000/-. B. Addition of Rs 26,95,00,000/- u/s 35(1) cannot be made as Donation is genuine and Assessee has discharged its Onus. In view of the Explanation to Section 35(1)(ii

ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MOBIAPPS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(2)(4), M/S Mobiapps India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.542, 5Th Floor, 7/10, Borawala Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaccm3613L

ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74 in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years; 16 (iii) no deduction shall

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74 in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74 in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed

KROSSOVER ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 12(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 35(l)(ii) of the Act inasmuch the CIT(A) has not appreciated that the letter dated 29th March, 2012 of the scientific research institution acknowledges receipt of Rs 20,00,000 by RTGS to their bank account (details mentioned therein) and has enclosed the necessary documents and hence, the said disallowance requires to be deleted. 3. Brief facts

PRASHANT KIRIT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT 26(2), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

35(1)(ii) of the Act. The case was reopened within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 after recording the reasons. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance

UNIMAX CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in allowed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs. 10,50,00,000/-, for A.Y. 2014-15, claimed by him under section 35(1)(ii

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

1-4-2016, the amendment to section 35(2AB)) are not applicable to the same and in terms of un-amended provisions of section 35(2AB) of the Act, since we have held above that the prescribed authority was not required in law to quantify the amount of expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility, such quantification

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

1-4- 2016, the amendment to section 35(2AB)) are not applicable to the same and in terms of un-amended provisions of section 35(2AB) of the Act, since we have held above that the prescribed authority was not required in law to quantify the amount of expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility, such quantification

ARROW GRENTECH LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9 (1)92) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Sections 35(1)(ii) of the Act amounting to total deduction of ₹.1,75,00,000/- being @ 175% of 1,00,00,000/- from business income. Assessing Officer asked to assessee why the above said donation should not be disallowed

ARROW GRENTECH LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9 (1)92), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Sections 35(1)(ii) of the Act amounting to total deduction of ₹.1,75,00,000/- being @ 175% of 1,00,00,000/- from business income. Assessing Officer asked to assessee why the above said donation should not be disallowed

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

ii) quantifying the expenditure incurred on in-house R & D facility by the company during the previous year and eligible for weighted deduction under sub-section 2AB of section 35 of the Act in part B of form No.3CL. In other words the quantification of expenditure has been prescribed vide IT (Tenth Amendment) ITA. No. 748/Mum/2022 Assessment Year

CHEMSTAR INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 3798 & 3799/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & Ay. 2014-15) Chemstar International Vs. Dcit-24(1) 102-D, Nirman Palace, Piramal Chambers, Pump House, Rajmata Lalbaug, Mumbai- Jijabai Road, Andheri 400012. East, Mumbai-400093. Pan : Aabfc8974G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ridhisha Jain Department By Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 Dateof Pronouncement 05.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,00,000/-, for A.Y. 2014-15, claimed by him under section 35(l)(ii) of the Act in respect of the amounts of donations made to two Institutions viz. 'Matrivani Institute Experimental Research & Education' (hereinafter referred to as 'Matrivani') and 'The School of Human Genetics and Population Health' (hereinafter referred