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

3) of the Act of ₹9,98,000/- out of purchases. iv. Unproved hiring charges disallowed under Section 37 and under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act of ₹63,02,742/-. ITA no. 7329 & 3851/Mum/2016 Pramod Ratan Patil; A.Y. 11–12 v. Addition under Section 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit of ₹10,50

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

3) of the Act of ₹9,98,000/- out of purchases. iv. Unproved hiring charges disallowed under Section 37 and under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act of ₹63,02,742/-. ITA no. 7329 & 3851/Mum/2016 Pramod Ratan Patil; A.Y. 11–12 v. Addition under Section 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit of ₹10,50

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

3 Reliance Transport & Travels Pvt. Ltd. in India. As per the report, the finance for the purchase was made by M/s. Reliance Capital Limited, M/s. Worldtel Holding Limited and M/s. Gateway Net Trading Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, a subsidiary of M/s. Reliance Communications Limited which has made direct payment for purchase of yacht. The yacht was dispatched to India vide Bill

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

50,54,077/ [3] An amount equal to one [3] An amount equal to one-half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet form part

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

50,54,077/ [3] An amount equal to one [3] An amount equal to one-half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet form part

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

3) accepting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. In the return of income filed in pursuance to the notice issued under section 154A of the Act, the assessee withdrew the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. In our view, since the issue relating to assessee‟s claim of deduction under section

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

50,49,586/-. The CIT(A) confirmed all the above disallowances following the appellate order for the preceding year and granted limited relief in respect of TDS credit, while treating interest grounds as consequential. 8. In A.Y. 2022-23, no independent addition or disallowance was made in the regular assessment order passed under section 143(3

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

50 of the IT Act, the gain arising out of sale of said depreciable assets was rightly treated as short term capital gain by the Assessing Officer and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961" (ii) "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was erred in deleting the addition made

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), 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) of the Act as made in the assessment order.” 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected u/s 145(3) for AY 2009-10 and submitted that there is no dispute as to the rejection of books of accounts by the authorities below . The assessee took

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) of the Act as made in the assessment order.” 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected u/s 145(3) for AY 2009-10 and submitted that there is no dispute as to the rejection of books of accounts by the authorities below . The assessee took

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

50,49,586/-. The CIT(A) confirmed all the above disallowances following the appellate order for the preceding year and granted limited relief in respect of TDS credit, while treating interest grounds as consequential. 8. In A.Y. 2022–23, no independent addition or disallowance was made in the regular assessment order passed under section 143(3

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

50,49,586/-. The CIT(A) confirmed all the above disallowances following the appellate order for the preceding year and granted limited relief in respect of TDS credit, while treating interest grounds as consequential. 8. In A.Y. 2022–23, no independent addition or disallowance was made in the regular assessment order passed under section 143(3

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

50,49,586/-. The CIT(A) confirmed all the above disallowances following the appellate order for the preceding year and granted limited relief in respect of TDS credit, while treating interest grounds as consequential. 8. In A.Y. 2022–23, no independent addition or disallowance was made in the regular assessment order passed under section 143(3

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).

disallowance and held that the provision of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in the case.” 8.1. During the course of hearing the Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, stated that the Assessee does not wish to pursue this ground since relief has been granted to the assessee in relation to this ground in appellate proceedings pertaining to the preceding

M/S.LAKESIDE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Lakeside Properties Private Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Limited, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old 312/3 Sharda Chamber No. 131, Vs. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Keshavji Naik Road, Bhat Bazar, Mumbai-400020. Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 009. Pan No. Aabcl 4041 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Siddharth Kothari, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

disallowed the said expenditure expenditure holding same was towards infringement of infringement of provision of law and has not provision of law and has not been incurred for the purpose of business. been incurred for the purpose of business. Whereas, Whereas, according to the assessee, the payment is not in the nature of illeg the assessee, the payment

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

3) nexus between the exempt income and expenditure disallowed under section 14 A of the act needs to be established and the assessee has disallowed on its own , ₹ 6,996,212 which is computed on a rational basis and therefore the disallowance should be accepted. Assessee ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. on 23/12/2019 without prejudice

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

3. Addition under section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit transactions but excluding the remote deposits. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 68 of the Act at Rs 4,21.34,504, estimated at the rate of 0.15 per cent of Rs 2,808.96 crores being the aggregate cash deposits and credit

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

3. Addition under section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit transactions but excluding the remote deposits. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 68 of the Act at Rs 4,21,34,504, estimated at the rate of 0.15 per cent of Rs 2,808.96 crores being the aggregate cash deposits