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)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3)/40A(3A) which was later being rectified by an order passed by learned CIT(A) dated 16-02-2017 u/s 154 wherein additions have been affirmed u/s 69C. It was submitted that the books of accounts were rightly rejected u/s 145(3). It was further submitted that Section 145(3) does not allow the A.O power

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

7. Shri Farookh V. Irani, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, the NHAI had entered into a concession agreement with the assessee for developing, operating and maintaining the 4–lane carriage way from kms. 200 to kms. 250 on between Vijayawada and Vishakhapatnam section on National Highway no.5, otherwise known as Rajahmundry Dharmabharam Tuni Toll Road

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

disallowance only on the above noted 4 items. He particularly stated the following: - (i) The liability is not for the relevant year rather it relates to earlier year. (ii) If at all it is allowable it falls under Section 40A (4/5) and 40A(7

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

disallowance of provision towards gratuity which was squarely covered by the provision of section 40A(7) of the Act. Further

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

disallowance of provision towards gratuity which was squarely covered by the provision of section 40A(7) of the Act. Further

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

7. Disallowance of weighted deduction amounting to INR 17,54,78,992 claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act (Page 25 & 26 of the Assessment Order] The Hon'ble DRP and the learned AO erred in facts and in law in making disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act, and in doing so have

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

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

7. In plain terms, sub-section (9) of section 40A disallows deduction of any sum paid by an assessee as an employer

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

7. In plain terms, sub-section (9) of section 40A disallows deduction of any sum paid by an assessee as an employer

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

disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 62,50,720/- comprising Rs. 46,23,220/- paid to M/s. Aegis Media India Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 16,27,500/- paid to M/s. Carat Media Services Pvt. Ltd. under section 37(1) read with section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 7

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

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. 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

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

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance

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

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. 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

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

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. 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

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

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance

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

Section 40A (3) are applicable. he has disallowed 20% of the total withdrawals from the bank. On this ground also we submit that the addition made is not justified and be deleted. 2.2. I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel and on the basis of facts and details brought on record and the submissions made above

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

40A (3) 5,433,800 on account of cash payment and further disallowance of 25% of expenses of ₹ 4,164,720 on account of unverified purchases 5 Cash deposit ₹ 1,050,000 ₹ Nil under section 68 525,000/– 6 Undisclosed ₹ 14,476,200 ₹ Nil income from 13,387,820 Lodha dwellers private limited 7

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

40A (3) 5,433,800 on account of cash payment and further disallowance of 25% of expenses of ₹ 4,164,720 on account of unverified purchases 5 Cash deposit ₹ 1,050,000 ₹ Nil under section 68 525,000/– 6 Undisclosed ₹ 14,476,200 ₹ Nil income from 13,387,820 Lodha dwellers private limited 7

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

disallowed under section 40A(3) M/s. Ratilal & Sons ITA No.5276/Mum./2019 of the Act. In reply, assessee submitted that remuneration paid to Partner within the limit of section 40(b) of the Act is fully allowable expense. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 31.10.2017, passed under section 143(3) of the Act held that remuneration paid to Shri Prakash Desai