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

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

3) r/w section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Whereas, in grounds no.6, 7, 8 and 9, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IA(4

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

4. The assessee has raised additional grounds of appeals, detailed as under:- “ 1. That Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act in spite of the fact that the Assessing officer has rejected the appellant’s books of accounts u/s. 145 of the Act and made disallowance u/s. 69C of the Act. 2. That

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

4. The assessee has raised additional grounds of appeals, detailed as under:- “ 1. That Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act in spite of the fact that the Assessing officer has rejected the appellant’s books of accounts u/s. 145 of the Act and made disallowance u/s. 69C of the Act. 2. That

ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

section 2(28C) to mean a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax or an Additional Commissioner of Income-tax under section 117(1). Section 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint Commissioner. The expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in 'section 2(28C). The Commissioner of Income

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

LATE SHRI MOHAN RAJ CHHAJED (THROUGH LEGAL JEOR SHANTILAL CHHAJED),MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Through Legal Heir Shantilal Pali Rajasthan-306-401. Chhajed), Vs. 601, Shilpa Apartments, C.D. Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaipc 6614 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, rejected books of accounts of the , rejected books of accounts of the assessee and applied gross assessee and applied gross profit at the rate of 22.19% ( profit at the rate of 22.19% (the rate which was declared in the immediately preceding asse was declared in the immediately preceding asse was declared in the immediately

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

ACIT CC 21 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SATGURU CAPITAL AND FINANCE P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 36(1)((vii) read with section 36(2). 7 I . T . A . N o . 4 9 1 4 , 4 9 7 7 , 4 5 6 4 a n d 3

SATGURU CAPITAL & FINANCE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 36(1)((vii) read with section 36(2). 7 I . T . A . N o . 4 9 1 4 , 4 9 7 7 , 4 5 6 4 a n d 3

ACIT CEN CIR 21 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SUNTECK WEALTHMAX CAPITAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 36(1)((vii) read with section 36(2). 7 I . T . A . N o . 4 9 1 4 , 4 9 7 7 , 4 5 6 4 a n d 3

SUNTECH WEALTHMAX CAPITAL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 21, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 36(1)((vii) read with section 36(2). 7 I . T . A . N o . 4 9 1 4 , 4 9 7 7 , 4 5 6 4 a n d 3

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowed on the ground that the assessee has not deposited the said amount of Rs. 41,27,149/- in the capital gain account maintained with the bank as stipulated u/s 54F(4) of 1961 Act . We have also observed that section 54F of 1961 Act is a beneficial provision which grants exemption from payment of tax on long term capital

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

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

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