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

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 ()

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in the instant case, ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in th ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in th since the said section

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 ()

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in the instant case, ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in th ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in th since the said section

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

3) of the Act, in respect of\nadjustment on impugned arm's length interest on the preference\nshare capital of the Associated Enterprise, subscribed by the\nAppellant, by recharacterising preference shares as a loan.\n2. Disallowance u/s 14A :- Rs. 4,86,94,253/-\nThe learned Assessing Officer erred in computing the disallowance\nu/s 14A as per Rule 8D amounting

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

3) read with section 153A of the\nAct did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the\nprovisions for standard assets are provision for contingent\nliabilities/unascertained losses and cannot be allowed in computing the total\nincome of the assessee. It was further held that the provisions of any nature\nare specifically prohibited to be allowed under

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

3) read with section 153A of the\nAct did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the\nprovisions\nfor standard assets are provision\nfor contingent\nliabilities/unascertained losses and cannot be allowed in computing the total\nincome of the assessee. It was further held that the provisions of any nature\nare specifically prohibited to be allowed under

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

3) read with section 153A of the\nAct did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the\nprovisions for standard assets are provision for contingent\nliabilities/unascertained losses and cannot be allowed in computing the total\nincome of the assessee. It was further held that the provisions of any nature\nare specifically prohibited to be allowed under

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

3) read with section 153A of the\nAct did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the\nprovisions for standard assets are provision for contingent\nliabilities/unascertained losses and cannot be allowed in computing the total\nincome of the assessee. It was further held that the provisions of any nature\nare specifically prohibited to be allowed under

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

Section 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 26/12/2008, assessing the total income of the Assessee at INR.11,06,04,76,832/- after making certain additions and disallowances. 3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2015, determining the total income at ₹51,19,60,630/ 29.03.2015, determining the total income at 51,19,60,630/-, after making various additions and disallowances as set out in the making various additions and disallowances as set out in the making various additions and disallowances as set out in the assessment order

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

disallowance made of set-off of brought forward business losses ought to be allowed, considering brought forward business losses ought to be allowed, considering brought forward business losses ought to be allowed, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and principle of natural the facts and circumstances of the case and principle of natural the facts and circumstances

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

3,34,76,51,568/- 4,20,47,45,482/- 8,45,13,02,470/- 7,49,13,26,247/- income 6. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 82,10,149/- 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

3 of the appeal is allowed with above directions. 21. Ground number 4 is with respect to the disallowance under section

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

4(3)(3) 5. The learned CIT(A) erred m confirming the action of the assessing officer in not granting deduction under section 80-O of Rs.10,10,038 as claimed by the appellant in the return of income 6. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other 7. The appellant reserves the right

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

4(3)(3) 5. The learned CIT(A) erred m confirming the action of the assessing officer in not granting deduction under section 80-O of Rs.10,10,038 as claimed by the appellant in the return of income 6. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other 7. The appellant reserves the right

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

4(3)(3) 5. The learned CIT(A) erred m confirming the action of the assessing officer in not granting deduction under section 80-O of Rs.10,10,038 as claimed by the appellant in the return of income 6. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other 7. The appellant reserves the right

SBI CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

4(3)(3) 5. The learned CIT(A) erred m confirming the action of the assessing officer in not granting deduction under section 80-O of Rs.10,10,038 as claimed by the appellant in the return of income 6. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other 7. The appellant reserves the right

DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. S.B.I CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

4(3)(3) 5. The learned CIT(A) erred m confirming the action of the assessing officer in not granting deduction under section 80-O of Rs.10,10,038 as claimed by the appellant in the return of income 6. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other 7. The appellant reserves the right

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

4(3)(3) 5. The learned CIT(A) erred m confirming the action of the assessing officer in not granting deduction under section 80-O of Rs.10,10,038 as claimed by the appellant in the return of income 6. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other 7. The appellant reserves the right