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

H.B. GUM INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member)

1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. Appellant prays that disallowance of donation\nunder Section 35(1)(ii) be deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72,254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72,254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) Disallowance of Expenditure towards ESOP - Rs. 7,35,861/- (iii) Disallowance of prior period expenses - Rs. 7,50,558/- (iv) Difference in TDS information - Rs. 72,254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section

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

ii. Alternatively, the learned AO held that above sum of ₹ 153,455,236/– is disallowable under section 37 (1) under section 36 (1) (iii) and section 38 of the act. iii. The AO found that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products wherein the assessee has debited ₹ 152,013,488 under the head business promotion

AAKASH VALUE REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

disallowance of deduction amounting to ₹1,79,37,500/- claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is\ndismissed whereas appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly\nallowed and appeal for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

35(1)(ii) of the Act, being 1.75 times the\namount paid. The AO however disputed the claim of weighted\ndeduction on the ground that the appellant has not produced any\nevidence to suggest that Ashapura Minechem Ltd to whom this\npayment has been made fulfils all the condition laid down in Section\n35(1)(ii) of the Act, under

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

disallowance of Rs. 54,93,734/- made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, Ground No. I raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2022– 23 is allowed. Ground No. II - Short grant of consequential interest under section 244A of the Act 81. This ground relates to the grievance of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has granted short