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

36(1)(va)", "Section 40(a)(ia)", "Section 43B", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 270A", "Section 115P", "Section 111A", "Section 112A", "Section 234D", "Section 244A", "Section 199", "Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962"], "issues": "The appeals involve multiple assessment years and grounds, including challenges to disallowances

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

disallowance under Section 143(1) cannot be held to be bad in law merely because a contrary High Court view existed at the time of processing. Related to impact of moratorium, we find that the moratorium imposed on the assessee bank, though factually established and genuinely constraining, cannot override the statutory requirement under Section 36(1)(va

DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

disallowance under Section 143(1) cannot be held to be bad in law merely because a contrary High Court view existed at the time of processing. Related to impact of moratorium, we find that the moratorium imposed on the assessee bank, though factually established and genuinely constraining, cannot override the statutory requirement under Section 36(1)(va

GOLDIAM JEWELLERY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CC 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms Padmavathy Svs. Acit – Cc 1(2) Goldiam Jewellery Ltd Mumbai. G-10, Ground Floor, Gems & Jewellery Complex Ii, Seeps Sez, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400096. Pan/Gir No. Aaccg3424F (Applicant) (Respondent)

disallowing the employees contribution of PF amounting to Rs.1,96,127/-, by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 36(1) (va). He submitted that, no disallowance could be made based on the dates Zahir Kasam Memon; A. Y.2019-20

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance of section 143(1) (a) (iv). When the due date under Explanation to section 36(1) (va) is judicially

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Disallowance of employee contribution to Labour Welfare\nFund (LWF) Rs. 31, 812/- U/s. 36(1) (να)\n1.\nThe CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition/disallowance made by the CPC at Rs.\n31, 812/- on account of alleged delayed payment of employee's contribution to LWF,\nunder section 36(1) (va

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Disallowance of employee contribution to Labour Welfare\nFund (LWF) Rs. 31, 812/- U/s. 36(1) (να)\n1.\nThe CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition/disallowance made by the CPC at Rs.\n31, 812/- on account of alleged delayed payment of employee's contribution to LWF,\nunder section 36(1) (va

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68 to 72 of\nthe case law compilation) and CIT vs. HDFC

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

section 36(1)(va)’, it is an apparent indication of the disallowance of expenditure u/s 36(1)(va) in the audit

CONCERTO SOFTWARE AND SYSTEMS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Concerto Software & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 15(1)(2), Unit No. 311/312 313, Building 2, Sector Room No. 483, 4Th Floor, 1, Millenium Business Park, Mahape, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai-400 710. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 4006 C Appellant Respondent

36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 apply retrospectively, even and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 apply retrospectively, even and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 apply retrospectively, even though the same came into force on 1.4.2021. though the same came into force on 1.4.2021. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the aforesaid disallowance

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. ()

section 36(1)(va)‘, it is an apparent indication of the disallowance of expenditure u/s 36(1)(va) in the audit

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. ()

section 36(1)(va)‘, it is an apparent indication of the disallowance of expenditure u/s 36(1)(va) in the audit

DIPEN KUMARPAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. NFAC- DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 8 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023

RISHABH METALS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CPC, DCIT -CIR 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerishabh Metals & Chemicals V. Dcit-Circle -1(3)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 4Th Floor, Eross Theatre Bldg Mumbai - 400020 Jt Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr2214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

disallowance U/S 143(1)(a)(iv). When the due date under explanation to section 36(1)(va) is judicially held

ARUN WAMAN KOLI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURE

The appeals are dismissed

36(1)(va)’ would now become indicative of a disallowance as the mere fact that Employees’ Contribution to ESI/PF has been deposited after the expiry of due date as specified in the applicable statute would trigger disallowance under Section

M/S. P.A.ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT , CPC, BEGALURU

The appeals are dismissed

disallowed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue

ODEX INDIA SOLUTIONS P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC , DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

disallowed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue

PRADMAN ENGINEERING SERVICES P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

disallowed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue