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

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

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

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

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

disallowance of trip scheme expenses and disallowance of colour idea store expenses as raised in ground No.11 & 12 respectively. As mentioned above assessee has various dealers all across the country who are normally hardware stores dealing in many other products other than paints and assessee company sell such paints to various dealers who will further sell to painters and other

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

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

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 ₹27,31,73,482/- was allowed instead of depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹7,74,20,633/-. iv

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

IV - Disallowance under section 43B – Rs. 9,076/- (professional tax) 57. The Assessing Officer observed that professional tax liability of Rs. 9,076/- remained unpaid as on the due date of filing of return of income. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of section 43B of the Act and disallowed the said amount. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made

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

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied

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

IV - Disallowance under section 43B – Rs. 9,076/-\n(professional tax)\n57. The Assessing Officer observed that professional tax liability\nof Rs. 9,076/- remained unpaid as on the due date of filing of\nreturn of income. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of section\n43B of the Act and disallowed the said amount. The CIT(A)\nconfirmed the disallowance made

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35(1 )(iv) of the Act are 'satisfied. In nbview of the aforesaid reasons the claim made by the assessee cannot be accepted. The action of the Assessing Officer of disallowing the claim of deduction to the extent of Rs.5,84,64,070/- is upheld.‖ 11.6.2 Ld.AR submitted that the claim towards weighted deduction under section

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

1\nVakola Pipeline Lane\nCuffee Parade\nSantacruz (East)\nMumbai-400\n005 Maharashtra\nS.O. Mumbai-400 055\nMaharashtra\n(Appellant)\nPAN/GIR No.AAACA3622K\n(Respondent)\n2\nITA No.2700/Mum/2023 and others\nM/s. Asian Paints\nAssessee by\nShri Madhur Agrawal &\nShri Ronak Doshi\nRevenue by\nShri Ajay Chandra\nDate of Hearing\n21/05/2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n26/07/2024\nआदेश / O RDER\nPER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):\nThe

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, 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

35 725 Dina Petit 1962 Purchase from Darab R.T. Tata 9 734 1967 Bonus Shares 1:1 734 1,468 1967 Subdivision of shares 6,606 6,606 1969 Less: Sold to Sterling Investment Company (900) 5,706 1973 (after Bonus Shares received 1:2 2,854 8,560 01.06.1973) 1974 (+) Purchase of Shares 30 8590 1974 (-) Shares Gifted

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

35 725 Dina Petit 1962 Purchase from Darab R.T. Tata 9 734 1967 Bonus Shares 1:1 734 1,468 1967 Subdivision of shares 6,606 6,606 1969 Less: Sold to Sterling Investment Company (900) 5,706 1973 (after Bonus Shares received 1:2 2,854 8,560 01.06.1973) 1974 (+) Purchase of Shares 30 8590 1974 (-) Shares Gifted