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 43B will unnecessarily involve disallowance of the payment for the last quarter. Certain Courts have interpreted the provisions of section

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

disallowed by the\nAssessee in the computation of income. In reply, the assessee\ncontended that the aforesaid amounts were not payable as on\n31/03/2006 (i.e. last day of the relevant previous year) and\ntherefore, the same cannot be covered by the provisions of Section\n43B of the Act. Relying upon the provisions contained in\nExplanation (2) to Section 43B

FRIGORIFICO ALLANA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va) - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed

THE DY CIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA PROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed whereas Cross Objection No

disallowed by the Assessee while computing total income in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 5. In the set aside proceedings Assessment Order was passed on 28.12.2018 under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act after making, inter alia addition of INR 3,78,15,218/- under Section 43B

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

disallowable under section 43B of the Act. The AO is directed to delete the proposed disallowance under section 43B 6.3 In the direction

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

43B(f)", "Section 37(1)", "Section 115JB", "Section 154", "Section 250"], "issues": "Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

section 115JB of the Act.” 2.5. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 4579/Mum/2019: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.48.26 cr. made on account of disallowance of provision for leave encashment u/s 43B

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowing the sum of Rs.\n6,37,00,000/-, expenditure in respect of post-retirement medical\nbenefit by considering the same under the provisions of section 43B

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance made in this regard. Treatment of interest liability as part of Electricity Tax for the purpose of section 43B

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance made in this regard. Treatment of interest liability as part of Electricity Tax for the purpose of section 43B

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

disallowance u 45. Having held so, the next question for our consideration Having held so, the next question for our consideration Having held so, the next question for our consideration is whether the following Explanation inserted by is whether the following Explanation inserted by is whether the following Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 in Section

GANNON DUNKERLEY & CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

disallowance observing as under: “7.5 With respect payment of PF dues, the facts of the 7.5 With respect payment of PF dues, the facts of the 7.5 With respect payment of PF dues, the facts of the case are carefully considered. It is pertinent to note that case are carefully considered. It is pertinent to note that case are carefully

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE- 5(4), MUMBAI vs. PRITHVI REALTORS AND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Prithvi Realtors & Hotels Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-5(4), Vs. 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Room No. 427, Anant Kanekar Marg, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra (East), G Block, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Bandra (E), Pan : Aaccp6911E Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

section 43B applies. Accordingly, AO has disallowed interest expenses of Rs. 14,29,87,746/- u/s 43B of the IT Act as the same

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

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

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

Section 43B but upheld the disallowance of Rs.9,75,96,266/- under Section 36(1)(va), as well as the interest

DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

Section 43B but upheld the disallowance of Rs.9,75,96,266/- under Section 36(1)(va), as well as the interest

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

disallowed the same under section 43B stating that the\ninterest payable is part and parcel of the Electricity Tax. The contention

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SATYAM REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadishdcit Cc-5(4), Mumbai Vs Satyam Realtors Private Ltd. Room No.436, 4Th Floor, Room No.4, 3Rd Floor Capri, Anant Kautilya Bhawan, Bandrakurla Kanekar Marg Bandra (East) Complex, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051 Pan:Aaccs7290P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None, Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Revenue Was Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-53, Mumbai [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 24.09.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

disallowed under section 438 of the Act only we.f. A.Y. 2018-19. 1 notice that the year under consideration is A.Y. 2016-17. For this year, interest payable to a co-operative bank has not been included in the provisions of section 43B

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

section 43B of the Act and disallowed the said amount. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing

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.

sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances