JOYO PLASTICS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act"), the 37(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act"), the 37(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act"), the expenditure so incurred by the Appellant was not allowable. It was for expenditure so incurred

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)/(9) of the Act. (iii) Even this provision can be allowed subject to condition of payment

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

1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 3,29,345/-, and disallowed provision for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 57,63,634/-. The CIT(A) upheld all the aforesaid disallowances and granted

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

1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under\nsection 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs.\n92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment of tax\ndeducted at source amounting to Rs. 3,29,345/-, and disallowed\nprovision for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 57,63,634/-.\nThe CIT(A) upheld all the aforesaid disallowances and granted\nlimited relief

DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX-17(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA STATE SECURITY CORPORATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance made in these cases for late deposit of employees‘ share to the relevant funds beyond the date prescribed under the respective Acts. 8. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble Bench of the Tribunal in Cemetile Industries (supra), the said contention raised by the Assessee to the effect that addition involved is beyond the scope of section 143(1

DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX-17(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA STATE SECURITY CORPORATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance made in these cases for late deposit of employees‘ share to the relevant funds beyond the date prescribed under the respective Acts. 8. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble Bench of the Tribunal in Cemetile Industries (supra), the said contention raised by the Assessee to the effect that addition involved is beyond the scope of section 143(1

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

53,98,165/-@ 34.61% of Rs. 44,90,23,825/-) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: the Ld. CITA) was justified in holding that disallowance us. 144 is to be restricted to the exempt income, where as in Finance Act 2022, explanation to Section 14A has been inserted which provides

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

53,98,165/-@ 34.61% of Rs. 44,90,23,825/-) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: the Ld. CITA) was justified in holding that disallowance us. 144 is to be restricted to the exempt income, where as in Finance Act 2022, explanation to Section 14A has been inserted which provides

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

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too start with a non obstante clause overriding sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Page No. | 10 Rishabh Metals and Chemicals Private Limited Profession". Likewise, section 40A(2) opens with a non obstante clause and spells

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

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

1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 3,29,345/-, and disallowed provision for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 57,63,634/-. The CIT(A) upheld all the aforesaid disallowances and granted limited relief

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

53,482/- and Rs. 145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

53,482/- and Rs. 145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

53,482/- and Rs. 145,57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

section 37, it is not necessary that the loan amount should be exclusively used in the business of the assessee. However, the requirement is that it should be used for the purpose of the business which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself. What is to be seen is that the transfer of borrowed funds

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer

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

1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under\nsection 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs.\n92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment of tax\ndeducted at source amounting to Rs. 3,29,345/-, and disallowed\nprovision for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 57,63,634/-.\nThe CIT(A) upheld all the aforesaid disallowances and granted\nlimited relief

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 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 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer invoking s. 40(a)(i) of the Act , the relevant provisions of s. 40(a)(i) of the Act are reproduced below: "s. 40(a)(i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits