STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

iv) which deals with contributions towards an Approved Superannuation Fund mentions that it is subject to such limits as may be prescribed for the purpose of approving the said Fund and subject to such condition as the CBDT may think fit to specify in cases where the contributions are not in the nature of annual contributions of fixed amounts

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

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

iv) which deals with contributions towards an Approved Superannuation Fund mentions that it is subject to such limits as may be prescribed for the purpose of approving the said Fund and subject to such condition as the CBDT may think fit to specify in cases where the contributions are not in the nature of annual contributions of fixed amounts

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

35(1)(iv) etc. Expenditure on CSR could take many forms. There could be Expenditure on CSR could take many forms. There could be Expenditure on CSR could take many forms. There could be expenditure on projects directly undertaken by company, such expenditure on projects directly undertaken by company, such expenditure on projects directly undertaken by company, such as setting

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

iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à-vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial

DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX-17(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA STATE SECURITY CORPORATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

35,133/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the disallowance cannot be made under section 143(1) when the issue in which there are two views possible. The assessee also submitted that the contributions were paid into the government accounts before the due dates for filing the returns

DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX-17(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA STATE SECURITY CORPORATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

35,133/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the disallowance cannot be made under section 143(1) when the issue in which there are two views possible. The assessee also submitted that the contributions were paid into the government accounts before the due dates for filing the returns

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

1,00,000 in the case of a professional firm and Rs. 75,000 in the case of a non-professional firm, the limit is 60% of the “book-profit” in this slab. For the balance of the “book-profit” after these two slabs, the limit is 40% . 48.7 Under the provisions of section 40A(2) an Assessing Officer

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

1,00,000 in the case of a professional firm and Rs. 75,000 in the case of a non-professional firm, the limit is 60% of the “book-profit” in this slab. For the balance of the “book-profit” after these two slabs, the limit is 40% . 48.7 Under the provisions of section 40A(2) an Assessing Officer

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 Violation of Judicial Ground. I Ground No. II Ground No. II Discipline 2 Order passed merely on Ground No. II Ground No. Ill Ground No. Ill conjecture and surmises M/s. Asian Paints 3 Breach of principles of - Ground No. I Ground No. I natural justice 4 Enhancement made by Ground No. Ground No. Ground

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

1 Violation of Judicial Ground. I Ground No. II Ground No. II Discipline 2 Order passed merely on Ground No. II Ground No. Ill Ground No. Ill conjecture and surmises 3 Breach of principles of Ground No. I Ground No. I natural justice 4 Enhancement made by Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. XIII XVI XIII

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

35. In the case of CIT vs. ICC India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble High Court has held that share application amount was a capital receipt and was never received towards trading purpose and, therefore, the question of applicability of section 41(1) does not arise. The High Court has, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Although

EMBIO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal for Ay 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhembio Limited Acit-15(1)(2), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Embio Limited Acit-15(1)(1), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Respondent By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

iv). 11. The coordinate bench of Chennai Tribunal in Apex Laboratories (P) ltd. Vs ACIT (supra) held that where a part of expenditure incurred by assessee toward unapproved R&D facilities was not entitled for deduction under section 35(2B), that itself could not be a reason to disallow the same under section 35(1

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

iv. With respect to disallowance under section 14 A of the act of ₹ 153,455,236/–, the learned DRP following the direction of dispute resolution panel in earlier years confirm the disallowance. v. With respect to the adjustment to the book profit under section 115JB of the act of the same amount disallowed ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 2, CUFFE PARADE

1 Assessee Grounds of appeal Violation of Judicial Discipline 2700/Mum/ 2023 AY 2016-17 Ground. I 2697/Mum/ 2023 AY 2017-18 Ground No. II 2696/Mum/ 2023 AY 2018-19 Ground No. II 2 Order passed merely on conjecture and surmises Ground No. II Ground No. III Ground No. III 3 Breach of principles of natural justice - Ground No. I Ground

ACIT -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HIKAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

section (4) of section 10A section 10A, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of segregating the profits of the busin segregating the profits of the business into export profits and ess into export profits and domestic

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

35 and part of 36 do not separately apply to an eligible unit during the period of tax holiday. During the ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 27 said period the deduction under the aforesaid sections of the Act are deemed to have been made. Similarly, under Section 10A(6)(ii) losses referred to in Section 72(1) or 74(1

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

35 and part of 36 do not separately apply to an eligible unit during the period of tax holiday. During the ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 27 said period the deduction under the aforesaid sections of the Act are deemed to have been made. Similarly, under Section 10A(6)(ii) losses referred to in Section 72(1) or 74(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35. As regards disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, the facts germane to the issue are identical to AY 2006-07. The detailed findings given while deciding the appeal for AY 2006-07 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present AY as well. Hence, for parity of reasons, the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) is directed