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)

5) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 [or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of that section], or (c) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section

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

5. Be that as it may, subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in case of Gammon India Ltd. and other group companies on 8th July 2010. The assessee was also covered under such search and seizure operation. In pursuance to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed

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

40a (ia) of the act, accordingly ₹ 8,940,897/– being 30% of ₹ 29,802,989 was disallowed. v. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35 (2AB) of the act at the rate of 200% of such expenditure incurred of ₹ 627,182,992 (deduction claimed of ₹ 1,254,365,984). The assessee was asked to furnish the form number 3CL wherein

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

5. The Tribunal while accepting assessee observed that the assessee had made such contribution to the medical benefit scheme specially envisaged for the retired employees of the bank. Sub-section (9) of Section 40A of the Act, in the opinion of the Tribunal was inserted to discourage the practice of creation of bogus funds and not to hit genuine expenditure

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

5. The Tribunal while accepting assessee observed that the assessee had made such contribution to the medical benefit scheme specially envisaged for the retired employees of the bank. Sub-section (9) of Section 40A of the Act, in the opinion of the Tribunal was inserted to discourage the practice of creation of bogus funds and not to hit genuine expenditure

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

disallowance of salary recharge and reimbursement of expenses amounting to Rs. 62,50,720/- under section 37(1) read 3 Dentsu Aegis Network India Private Limited with section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The relevant facts, as emerging from the assessment order, are recorded hereunder. 4. The Assessing Officer observed from the details of expenses claimed under the head

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

5,84,12,807/-wherein following additions/disallowances were made:- i. of ₹44,35,916/- disallowed as unproved transportation charges under Section 37 of the Act. ii. Of ₹2,87,26,562/- unproved purchases under Section 37 of the Act. iii. Disallowance under Section 40A

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

5,84,12,807/-wherein following additions/disallowances were made:- i. of ₹44,35,916/- disallowed as unproved transportation charges under Section 37 of the Act. ii. Of ₹2,87,26,562/- unproved purchases under Section 37 of the Act. iii. Disallowance under Section 40A

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance of Rs 1,39,81,267 is bad in law and ought to be deleted. 8. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P 8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance of Rs 1,39,81,267 is bad in law and ought to be deleted. 8. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P 8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance of Rs 1,39,81,267 is bad in law and ought to be deleted. 8. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P 8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance of Rs 1,39,81,267 is bad in law and ought to be deleted. 8. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P 8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

40A(3) without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance of Rs 1,39,81,267 is bad in law and ought to be deleted. 8. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P 8.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of deduction under section 80P claimed by the appellants

VILAS TRANSPORT COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Vilas Transport Company Income Tax Officer-13(2)(1) 103/104, Vyapar Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 49, P. D’Mello Road, Carnac Mumbai 400020 Bunder, Mumbai 400009 Pan - Aaafv0760G Appellant Respondent

5. Ground No. 1 - Disallowance under section 40A(3) 5.1 In this ground, the assessee assails the impugned order of the learned

M/S. RATILAL & SONS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

5. During the course of assessment proceedings, upon verification of Ledger account filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that assessee has paid remuneration of Rs. 30,000 to Mr. Prakash Desai (i.e. one of its Working Partners) in cash. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why said payment be not disallowed under section 40A

INTERNATIONAL SHIPS STORES SUPPLIERES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 13(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2009-10 International Ships Stores Suppliers Vs. Jcit, Range 13(2) 101, Navratan, 69 P.D. Mello Road Mumbai 1St Floor, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai Pan No. Aaafi0135Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Mr. Deepak Traslhawala Assessee By : Mr. Javed Akhtar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2016

section 40A(3) of the Act Rs. 13,11,455/- 2 Disallowance of loss on sale of fenders Rs. 14,74,982/- However, before adverting further it may be clarified that though the assessee vide its ground of appeal no. 1 had challenged the disallowance under Sec. 40A(3) which amounts to Rs. 13,11,455/-, however it had wrongly

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

section 32(1) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of club membership fees of Rs. 24,000 paid by assessee 3. Disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s 40A(2) 4. Disallowance of interest u/s 40(A)(2)(b) 5

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

section 32(1) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of club membership fees of Rs. 24,000 paid by assessee 3. Disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s 40A(2) 4. Disallowance of interest u/s 40(A)(2)(b) 5