TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowing the sum of Rs.\n6,37,00,000/-, expenditure in respect of post-retirement medical\nbenefit by considering the same under the provisions of section 43B\nof the Act to be allowed as deduction only payment basis.\n7. Expenditure on In-house Scientific Research and Development,\nSection 35(2AB):- Rs. 4

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

37 and Section 38 of the Act is not warranted. 5.3 In stating the fact that the Appellant has not provided the rationale behind arriving at such suo motu adjustment. 5.4 In disallowing the interest on borrowing under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the investments were made during the current/past years

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business deductions and Chapter VI deductions and Chapter VI-A incentives must be respected, and A incentives must be respected, and their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. Accordingly

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENDUS CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jcit (Osd)-14(1)(1), M/S Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, 901, Platina, 9Th Floor, Plot No. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C59, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aabcc 2404 Q Appellant Respondent

4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIl'(A) erred in holding that the disallowance u/s law, the CIl'(A) erred in holding that the disallowance

PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

Disallowance charges under by invoking section 37 the provisions of section 40 A (3) of Rs. 2,91,330/– 2 Hiring charges ₹ 6,302,742 Nil Enhancement under section 37 on account of cash payment under section 40A (3) in hiring charges ₹ 85,000/– 3 Unproved 2,87,26,562 Rs. purchases under 2, 11,500 section 37 4

ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

Disallowance charges under by invoking section 37 the provisions of section 40 A (3) of Rs. 2,91,330/– 2 Hiring charges ₹ 6,302,742 Nil Enhancement under section 37 on account of cash payment under section 40A (3) in hiring charges ₹ 85,000/– 3 Unproved 2,87,26,562 Rs. purchases under 2, 11,500 section 37 4

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

disallowance can be made u/s 37 of the Act. made u/s 37 of the Act.” 7.2 Before us, the Ld. Counsel Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee submitted that firstly section 40A(2)(b) of the Act is not section 40A(2)(b) of the Act is not applicable applicable in the case

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80IA(4) of the Act. This is why, while dealing with the issue earlier, though, the fact of EPC and O & M contracts were very much in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate 37 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. authorities, they never questioned assessee‟s status as the developer of the infrastructure facility and the disallowance

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

37(1) of the Act or, in the case of interest, under section 36(1)(iii). In response, the assessee furnished detailed submissions on each and every issue, which have been reproduced in the impugned order from pages 4 to 33. 4 ICICI Securities Limited 5.1. Notwithstanding the detailed explanations and documentary evidence placed on record by the assessee

LIVA HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 904/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) The Assistant Commissioner Liva Healthcare Limited बनाम/ Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Shivsagar Estate, V. Room No. 522, 5 Th Floor, ‘A’ Block, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Dr. Annie Basant Road Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafw0040N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law. This disallowance shall be made in the hands of such pharmaceutical or allied health sector Industries or other assessee ITA 904 and 945/Mum/2013 13 which has provided aforesaid freebees and claimed it as a deductable expense in its accounts against income. 4

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. LIVA HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 904/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) The Assistant Commissioner Liva Healthcare Limited बनाम/ Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Shivsagar Estate, V. Room No. 522, 5 Th Floor, ‘A’ Block, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Dr. Annie Basant Road Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafw0040N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law. This disallowance shall be made in the hands of such pharmaceutical or allied health sector Industries or other assessee ITA 904 and 945/Mum/2013 13 which has provided aforesaid freebees and claimed it as a deductable expense in its accounts against income. 4

MAHANSARIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, MUMBAI-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

4 business. Explanation to Section 37(1), introduced through the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, specifically disallows CSR expenses, noting that

AXIS SECURITIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain(Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Am) Axis Securities Limited Pcit-4 Unit 002A & 002B, Agastya Room No. 629 Corporate Park, Pirmal Realty Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kamani Junction, Kurla-W M.K. Road Mumbai-400 070. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aabce6263F Appellant Respondent

4, Mumbai erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction to the extent of Rs. 96,83,474/- under Section 80G of the Act on the ground that the donation classified as 'Corporate Social Responsibility' expenditure is not eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Act." 3. The Appellant is a company engaged

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

section section (1) of the said section, so as to include a non-obstante clause in said section, so as to include a non obstante clause in respect of other provisions of the Income- -tax Act and respect of other provisions of the Income provide that no deduction shall be allowed in provide that no deduction shall be allowed

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

37,500/- under Section 43CA Section 43CA of the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Secondly, the disallowance of , the disallowance of Rs. 1,19,32,795/- under

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

37,500/- under Section 43CA Section 43CA of the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Secondly, the disallowance of , the disallowance of Rs. 1,19,32,795/- under

BALRAJSINGH JAGJITSINGH KHARBANDA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Balrajsinghjagjitsingh Adit, Cpc Bangalore, Kharbanda, Cpc, Bangalore-560500. C/3, Ravi Darshan, Sherly Vs. Rajan Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Adhpk 1733 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh S. Kothari Revenue By : Kamble Minal Mohan, Dr : Date Of Hearing 05/06/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 07/06/2023 Order

4 expenditure but it is a 'capital expenditure'. Sec expenditure but it is a 'capital expenditure'. Sec expenditure but it is a 'capital expenditure'. Section 37 reads as under. reads as under. "37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the "37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the "37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

disallowance of these expenditures u/s 80G, if other conditions of section 80G are fulfilled. There is no allegation of Revenue that other conditions of Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground.” 17. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alubond Dacs India (P.) Ltd. (supra) considered the provisions of Companies