ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

b). In the given situation clause (iv) of section 143(1) (a) of the Act applies and we do not see any fault at the end of the CPC, Bengaluru while considering these amounts for the purposes Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. of disallowance u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Our observations are with reference to scope of section 143(1

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

b) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant bank has not claimed bad debts written off to which recovery pertains as an allowable expenditure in its return of income in the past years. c) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in order to tax the recovery of the bad debts under section 41

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

b) of Form 3CD. It is also not in dispute that during the course of processing under section 143(1), the assessee had furnished a detailed reply dated 30.01.2024 along with documentary evidence in the form of challans, demonstrating that the employees’ contribution for the month of June 2021 had, in fact, been deposited on July 04, 2021, which

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

41,05,801/-\n50. We also have already adjudicated the issue relating to\ndeduction under section 80G while deciding the corresponding\nground for A.Y. 2017–18. Since the facts and the applicable legal\nprinciples for the year under consideration are identical, we do\nnot consider it necessary to adjudicate the issue separately for\nthis year. The findings recorded

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed Rs.471,05,05,075/-.\n5. 1. The assessee agitated the matter before ld. CIT(A) and vehemently\ncontended that the assessee had written off bad debts of Rs.923.67 Crore\nafter reducing the opening credit balance in the provision for bad and\ndoubtful debts account u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs.452.61 Crores and claimed\nthe balance amount of Rs.471.06 Crores

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

disallow the deduction to 10% of rural advances of ₹122.30 crores which were not rural branches ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 vi. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act of ₹138,52,06,494/- which should have been restricted to ₹961,47,93,509/- being 20% of allowable deduction. vii. Excess allowances of long-term

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

b) to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01/04/2013, i.e., from the assessment year 2013-14 onwards, are not applicable to the banks constituted as corresponding new banks in terms of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

b) to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01/04/2013, i.e., from the assessment year 2013-14 onwards, are not applicable to the banks constituted as corresponding new banks in terms of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section

RISHABH METALS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CPC, DCIT -CIR 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerishabh Metals & Chemicals V. Dcit-Circle -1(3)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 4Th Floor, Eross Theatre Bldg Mumbai - 400020 Jt Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr2214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression: due date has been defined under explanation (no explanation 1) to section 36(1)(va) provides that" for the purpose of this clause, 'due date means the date by which the assessee is required

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1-4-2009, clearly shows that "manufacture" would mean a change in a non-living physical object or article or thing resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use. In the present case, the term "difference name, character and use" comes

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1-4-2009, clearly shows that "manufacture" would mean a change in a non-living physical object or article or thing resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use. In the present case, the term "difference name, character and use" comes

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1-4-2009, clearly shows that "manufacture" would mean a change in a non-living physical object or article or thing resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use. In the present case, the term "difference name, character and use" comes

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1-4-2009, clearly shows that "manufacture" would mean a change in a non-living physical object or article or thing resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use. In the present case, the term "difference name, character and use" comes

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1-4-2009, clearly shows that "manufacture" would mean a change in a non-living physical object or article or thing resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use. In the present case, the term "difference name, character and use" comes

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1-4-2009, clearly shows that "manufacture" would mean a change in a non-living physical object or article or thing resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use. In the present case, the term "difference name, character and use" comes

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1-4-2009, clearly shows that "manufacture" would mean a change in a non-living physical object or article or thing resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use. In the present case, the term "difference name, character and use" comes

JINSEVA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appe

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

disallowance of exemption u/s. mption u/s. 11 of the Act and cannot be a ground Act and cannot be a ground for rejection of registration u/s. 12A. for rejection of registration u/s. 12A. Ground - 4 4 - Without prejudice to the above, out of abundant Without prejudice to the above, out of abundant precaution and in good faith, the appellant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

41,70,860/- filed by the Assessee has been accepted as assessed income. At the same time the Assessing Officer has, while concluding, has stated that the „assessment of income is done as per computation sheet‟. A perusal of the Computation Sheet shows that the adjustment made while processing return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act have