DENTSU AEGIS NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(ERSTWHILE VIZEUM MEDIA SERVICE INDIA MERGED IN DAN INDIA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardentsu Aegis Network Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Vizeum Media Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Service India Merged Maharashi Karve With Dentsu Aegis Marg, Mumbai-400 Network India Private 020 Limited W.E.F. 1St April 2017) 2Nd Floor, Devchand House, Dr. A. B. Road, Shiv Sagar Estate Mumbai, Worli So, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aahca3058N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) and under section 37(1) read with section 40A(2)(b). The CIT(A) confirmed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BLEND FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the R

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance of Rs. 1,62,10,571/- under section 40A(2)(b) is not justified under section 40A(2)(b) is not justified

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance under section 14A of the Act as against the net interest expenditure. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may thus be granted. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave

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

2, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance of deprecation by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. 48 Rajahmundry

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

Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 2,37,52,201\n8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance

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

Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 2,37,52,201\n8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance

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

Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 2,37,52,201\n8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance

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

Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 2,37,52,201\n\n8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) is not sustainable. The CIT(A) however upheld the disallowance by placing reliance on the decision

ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) is not sustainable. The CIT(A) however upheld the disallowance by placing reliance on the decision

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) is not sustainable. The CIT(A) however upheld the disallowance by placing reliance on the decision

TRIMODE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtrimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit - 10(3) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit - 15(3)(1) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Hitesh Trivedi (Ars) Respondent By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Cit(A)]-22, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2012 & Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai Dated 24.06.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) For Ita No. 3471/M/12 & 4977/M/16- Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd.

section 40A(2) of the Act to the payments independent parties. 2. (a) The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing

BLOSSOM DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 30(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Blossom Developers Survey No.273, Village Dindoshi Rani Sati Marg, Pathanwadi ……………. Appellant Malad (E), Mumbai 400 097 Pan – Aahfb6147Q V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–30(1), Mumbai

2, the assessee has challenged the disallowance made under section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 40A(2)(b). The legal proposition is that payment to sister concern cannot be disallowed under section 40A(2

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 40A(2)(b). The legal proposition is that payment to sister concern cannot be disallowed under section 40A(2

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 40A(2)(b). The legal proposition is that payment to sister concern cannot be disallowed under section 40A(2